3 ms·
Wait, we think they’re lying because an advisory was eventually found? We think that should be impossible with people involved?
by PUSH_AX 8mo ago
Wait, we think they’re lying because an advisory was eventually found? We think that should be impossible with people involved?
- huimang 8mo agoTo me it's likely, given the extremely rudimentary nature of that issue.
- parliament32 8mo agoIf you're asking in good faith, > Every line was thoroughly reviewed and cross-referenced with relevant RFCs The issue in the CVE comes from direct contradiction of the RFC. The RFC says you MUST check redirect uris (and, as anyone who's ever worked with oauth knows, all the functionality around redirect uris is a staple of how oauth works in the first place -- this isn't some obscure edge case). They didn't make a mistake, they simply did not implement this part of the spec. When they said every line was "thoroughly reviewed" and "cross referenced", yes, they lied.
- sally_glance 8mo agoI mean, you can't review or cross reference something that isn't there... So interpreting in good faith, technically, maybe they just forgot to also check for completeness? /s
- usefulposter 8mo agoReading the necessary RFC is table stakes. Instead we got this: >"NOOOOOOOO!!!! You can't just use an LLM to write an auth library!" >"haha gpus go brrr" (Those lines remain in the readme, even now: https://github.com/cloudflare/workers-oauth-provider?tab=readme-ov-file#written-using-claude https://github.com/cloudflare/workers-oauth-provider?tab=rea...)