5 ms·

Trust goes a long way. Microsoft had given me read/write access to full Windows source code on my first day despite that I was only hired to work on certain par

by sedatk 3y ago

Trust goes a long way. Microsoft had given me read/write access to full Windows source code on my first day despite that I was only hired to work on certain parts of the kernel and drivers. I'd never been shown this kind of trust before; other companies I'd worked with always had layers around trust, so, this kind of "you're 100% one of us now" message on my first day had made me extra happy and motivated at Microsoft. I was extra careful protecting source code too. Loved working there until the day I quit.

ipaddr 3y ago
Not to worry, it's in a source control and mistakes can be reverted.
- Rygian 3y ago
  If detected.
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    Exactly. I worked for an (unnamed) company once. For some reason I needed to update the gender of a user on the production server with two million users on it. (There was no interface to change gender I expect) I accidentally forgot the WHERE clause on the SQL UPDATE and made everyone male. A fellow developer was watching over my shoulder and we decided to just use the Title column (e.g. Mr/Ms/Mrs) to repopulate the Gender of all users without letting anyone know. I want to apologize to all the female Drs. in that database.
waveBidder 3y ago
honestly the security of that makes me nervous. I would frankly expect nation state levels of paranoia around the windows source. Was there any investigation into whether you could be compromised by someone? or maybe I'm underestimating the amount of checks between you and code in windows updates?
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  A good system should have backups and monitoring of commits. I.e. worst thing that can happen when giving write rights is to make others spend some time fixing a bad commit, that's all.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  You can get access as a third party too with the right NDA. > maybe I'm underestimating the amount of checks between you and code in windows updates Access doesn't mean force push rights to master (-:
  - arp242 3y ago
    And even "force push to master" would be okay. It's not like you can force push and not have anyone notice: you're going to break everyone's pull. The biggest reason to disable this is more to prevent accidental mistakes: you think you're force pushing your feature branch but you accidentally force pushed master. We've all done something like that.
    - judge2020 3y ago
      Non-force push rights to master are the true horror - if noone notices one, that commit gets pulled with no errors or warnings. Of course MSFT probably requires x code reviews for PR/patch merges.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    In defense of the concerned comment, they do say “read/write” access. I’m not 100% what they mean by “write” though, surely adding in some sneaky evil code where it doesn’t belong would set off some alarm bells at least.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > I would frankly expect nation state levels of paranoia around the windows source. Why? They give that source away under NDA to non-employees. Handing it to someone who passed all the employment hurdles and has signed a more restrictive NDA shouldn't be a problem.

by sedatk 3y ago

ipaddr 3y ago

Not to worry, it's in a source control and mistakes can be reverted.

Rygian 3y ago
If detected.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  Exactly. I worked for an (unnamed) company once. For some reason I needed to update the gender of a user on the production server with two million users on it. (There was no interface to change gender I expect) I accidentally forgot the WHERE clause on the SQL UPDATE and made everyone male. A fellow developer was watching over my shoulder and we decided to just use the Title column (e.g. Mr/Ms/Mrs) to repopulate the Gender of all users without letting anyone know. I want to apologize to all the female Drs. in that database.

waveBidder 3y ago

honestly the security of that makes me nervous. I would frankly expect nation state levels of paranoia around the windows source. Was there any investigation into whether you could be compromised by someone? or maybe I'm underestimating the amount of checks between you and code in windows updates?

mytailorisrich 3y ago
A good system should have backups and monitoring of commits. I.e. worst thing that can happen when giving write rights is to make others spend some time fixing a bad commit, that's all.
robertlagrant 3y ago
You can get access as a third party too with the right NDA. > maybe I'm underestimating the amount of checks between you and code in windows updates Access doesn't mean force push rights to master (-:
- arp242 3y ago
  And even "force push to master" would be okay. It's not like you can force push and not have anyone notice: you're going to break everyone's pull. The biggest reason to disable this is more to prevent accidental mistakes: you think you're force pushing your feature branch but you accidentally force pushed master. We've all done something like that.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    Non-force push rights to master are the true horror - if noone notices one, that commit gets pulled with no errors or warnings. Of course MSFT probably requires x code reviews for PR/patch merges.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  In defense of the concerned comment, they do say “read/write” access. I’m not 100% what they mean by “write” though, surely adding in some sneaky evil code where it doesn’t belong would set off some alarm bells at least.
lelanthran 3y ago
> I would frankly expect nation state levels of paranoia around the windows source. Why? They give that source away under NDA to non-employees. Handing it to someone who passed all the employment hurdles and has signed a more restrictive NDA shouldn't be a problem.