Comment by mkal_tsr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mkal_tsr | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

But that's my point. It's not basic because it's so context dependent (hence the comment about the regex/functions).

No matter how clever you get with your pattern matching, you're going to have to always play catch-up with Web Framework N+1's format / weird-ass package manager. The dual approach is the only sensible approach because it expands your coverage. The important thing to this is to internalize the knowledge learned from 3rd parties and integrate that into your native process / tools, but not everyone will do that.

It'd be grand if we could say, "yeah, they should take care of my security for me because I'm paying them" but reality is a bitch. It doesn't matter what they were 'supposed' to do if there was an infosec leak or attack, you can't ctrl-z that (set of) event(s) and that info is out there, so it must be fixed (re-roll credentials, regen keys/certs, etc) and accounted for next time. There really is no 'getting ahead' but 'being less behind' will at least help mitigate getting eaten from the herd ;-)

If only github had a community of developers that could play such a catch up game... oh wait.

It's kind of amusing you are arguing that it's impossible to play this game, even though that's exactly what the perpetrators are doing, they are automatically detecting API keys and harvesting the code... maybe their script is hosted on github?

My point in my OP was to not play the game of catch-up, don't even pitch in your vuln strs.

Any time you want to show me a 100% future-proof algorithm for sensitive-info detection that works across any/all code on github, I'd be happy to toss my hat in and say, "I was wrong", until then, people will never ever beat 0days they don't know exist (0day being more than just a SW exploit). Just do.not.commit.sensitive.info.to.github. Period. That is the only sure way to not mess it up. Software only executes what is in the code, regardless of how nonsensical it is (aka, your code will not save you from messing up, something something something, PEBKAC)

I'm not arguing it's "impossible to play this game" It's 100% possible to play it when and how you'd like. I'm discussing the rate of "did I win (read: not get pwnd)?" It's cat and mouse of automation for vulnerable/sensitive info ... but all of that is rendered moot if you ... wait for it ... don't commit it to Github which would mean it wouldn't get to Github's API which means it wouldn't appear in 3rd party services sucking the firehose from Github cloud-y silicon teet.

And expanding on this ... committing your passwords and sensitive info to your code-repo is so misguided it's actually funny. What happens if you have an employee and they go off the deep end? Whoops, gotta rotate all those passwords/credentials/un-fuck every branch/resync dev's machines/etc. Keeping that sensitive info in a private, self-hosted, well-maintained internal repo (with strong ACLs, especially wrt server/hosting environments) will go significantly further for your team's security than submitting a feature request to a company to stop you from making arbitrary mistakes every so often.

You're straw-manning. The suggestion was that it would be useful to have a best-effort system to try to detect when people make mistakes. I don't think there's any suggestion that it should be something that people rely on, or that the system should or could be perfect - merely that it would be useful.

I wouldn't go so far as saying I was creating a straw-man argument. My point is just that relying on other people to take care of security for you ends up with an "eh" attitude in the long-run, and self-education is more important.

Yes, Github can/should help, but developers should not think they're owed it just because they constantly check in sensitive info to a website, that's all.

So Police are pointless and a result of an "eh" attitude?

(I'm just applying your point to another kind of 'security' that is provided to you).

You are basically arguing the "We should all live in the woods, and hunt and kill our own food, because relying on other people is fraught with danger" line.

Or we could accept mistakes are made, and provide warnings/undos/etc. Kind of like how cars have airbags, even though they are rendered moot by just "not crashing your car"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com