4 ms·
I heard something similar. that they deploy content separately from code, but they don't test all of the combinations of code + content. This crash was from "
by tonymet 2y ago
I heard something similar. that they deploy content separately from code, but they don't test all of the combinations of code + content. This crash was from "stable" code in the driver mixed with a corrupt or incomplete content file (config, etc) , triggering the null-ptr exception .
Sounds like one of those companies where you get hired and are shocked by the sausage factory you just stepped into
- rvnx 2y agoIn February they added new code that allows to spy/block named pipes. Named pipes are pipes of communication that processes can use to talk to each other, as an alternative to sockets. For example Chrome uses them between the user interface and the actual page renderer. In March they tested it in staging, said it was fine, pushed to prod with few rules in April, still looked fine. In July they added a new rule, which was deployed to 100% immediately, as from their perspective, a new entry in a database definition doesn't need testing nor canary deploy (which is still irresponsible, because bad rules could cause damage as well like any security/antivirus software, even if the parser didn't crash, but it could have blocked legitimate actions or files)
- tonymet 2y agogreat summary thanks for the details. I hope more companies see this and consider adding more test diagnostics
- magicalhippo 2y agoRight, so it seems two egregious errors: no (or highly lacking) fuzzing of kernel modules acceping arbitrary input, and no testing of configuration changes given it's ingested by a kernel module.