3 ms·
I don't really understand what you are saying here .. It should not be difficult to run `go build` locally and then tell a tool to upload `foobar` instead of `m
by st3fan 8y ago
I don't really understand what you are saying here .. It should not be difficult to run `go build` locally and then tell a tool to upload `foobar` instead of `main.go`.
Uploading source code is a dealbreaker for me because I do not trust Google or myself. Google probably has language in their terms that they may do whatever they want with anything you upload to them.
I also do not trust myself to properly configure security parameters around this with the risk of leaking source code.
Binaries are a great strength of Go. Too bad this platform doesn't use them. I will take a peek at the new Container platform that they are building, but that sounds more heavyweight, which probably comes with a higher price. (I have not seen any actual pricing)
- nikki93 8y agocan't your security params be read out of the binary in any case? i'm not sure how binaries offer more security.
- weberc2 8y agoHis post is super unclear but I think he is concerned about someone getting their hands on his source code. In general, a compiled Go binary is not trivial to reverse engineer, so there’s some security through obscurity there.
- st3fan 8y agoNot 'someone'. Google.
- nikki93 8y agoYour secrets are not safe by embedding them in a binary. Compilation is not (necessarily, and at least so in the Go compiler's case) security...
- saagarjha 8y agoNot a whole lot, though. A determined reverse engineer will likely be able to grab something close to your source code without much difficulty, assuming you haven't applied any wacky obfuscation.