5 ms·

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 in

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.
ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
In "the days of yore," security was secondary. Apple's operating system used to have "hooks," where you could register to intercept almost anything that went through the system. Basically, any app could intercept the execution thread of another app (or the operating system), and insert its own code. Doesn't that sound fun? One of my favorite MacHack projects was the "Energizer Bunny" hack (I think Dean Yu did it). You installed the hack on multiple Macs, and, randomly, the Energizer Bunny would start banging across their screen. When it was done with one machine, it would move to another machine on the network. These days, security geeks would defecate masonry, if they came across that. One of my favorite apps, was something called "Kaleidoscope"[0], which allowed you to select custom "themes," for the operating system, bypassing the Appearance Manager[1], which was an API over QuickDraw. The themes could have executable components. Some of the themes where ghastly (but fun). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleidoscope_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleidoscope_(software) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appearance_Manager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appearance_Manager
alentred 3y ago
Why? That's security by obscurity. On the contrary, the more people look at the code, the bigger the chance to find and fix any issues earlier rather than later. Linux is widespread and nobody freaks out about it being open source. And as of the changes - they are reviewed and tracked in version control.
- waveBidder 3y ago
  it's the write access that worries me, not the read
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

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.

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago

In "the days of yore," security was secondary. Apple's operating system used to have "hooks," where you could register to intercept almost anything that went through the system. Basically, any app could intercept the execution thread of another app (or the operating system), and insert its own code. Doesn't that sound fun? One of my favorite MacHack projects was the "Energizer Bunny" hack (I think Dean Yu did it). You installed the hack on multiple Macs, and, randomly, the Energizer Bunny would start banging across their screen. When it was done with one machine, it would move to another machine on the network. These days, security geeks would defecate masonry, if they came across that. One of my favorite apps, was something called "Kaleidoscope"[0], which allowed you to select custom "themes," for the operating system, bypassing the Appearance Manager[1], which was an API over QuickDraw. The themes could have executable components. Some of the themes where ghastly (but fun). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleidoscope_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleidoscope_(software) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appearance_Manager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appearance_Manager

alentred 3y ago

Why? That's security by obscurity. On the contrary, the more people look at the code, the bigger the chance to find and fix any issues earlier rather than later. Linux is widespread and nobody freaks out about it being open source. And as of the changes - they are reviewed and tracked in version control.

waveBidder 3y ago
it's the write access that worries me, not the read

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]