3 ms·
> Worse, since this was changed in a common function that all kinds of programs at the company used, it meant that anything that created a directory in that lan
by greenyoda 5y ago
> Worse, since this was changed in a common function that all kinds of programs at the company used, it meant that anything that created a directory in that language (with that library) was now vulnerable to this kind of injection.
Low-level libraries that are used all over the company should probably have a strict code review process that's overseen by a group of experienced maintainers who have a good knowledge of security, performance, etc.
- easton 5y agoAt the very least, given this is a bigco with enough technical staff to have shared libraries for filesystem work (so I'm assuming FAANG or FAANG adjacent), one would think there would be a CI check for naughty stuff (like using system(3)) which requires a n+1 level engineer override to actually get committed. There's almost always a better way.
- Symbiote 5y ago> a bigco with enough technical staff to have shared libraries for filesystem work (so I'm assuming FAANG or FAANG adjacent) What? We are 7 people, and have a shared library for filesystem work. (Since Java 8 about half of it is no longer needed, as it's included, and we replace usage with the standard library as we update projects.)
- floatboth 5y agoIdeally they should be turned into open source projects. Google's https://abseil.io https://abseil.io and Facebook's https://github.com/facebook/folly https://github.com/facebook/folly come to mind.
- alecbz 5y agoFWIW the libs in abseil existed as internal-only code for a while at Google before they underwent the effort to open source them, and I think it still likely represents just the tip of the iceberg of Google's internal C++ libs.