3 ms·
>As a code author/reviewer, I would never write "os as g" and I would absolutely never approve review of any code that used this. lucky for them, its an exploi
by john_strinlai 6mo ago
>As a code author/reviewer, I would never write "os as g" and I would absolutely never approve review of any code that used this.
lucky for them, its an exploit script, not enterprise code.
all that needs to be "reviewed" is whether or not it exploits the thing its supposed to.
edit: yall really think a 10-line proof of concept script needs to undergo a code review? wild. i shouldnt be surprised that the top comment on a cool LPE exploit is complaining about variable naming
- Xirdus 6mo agoI'd imagine that at minimum, the team in charge of patching the vulnerability would need to review how the exploit works.
- john_strinlai 6mo agoid imagine that they received more than just the poc in the report they received
- Xirdus 6mo agoThat doesn't make reviewing the POC any less valuable.
- john_strinlai 6mo agowhat value do you believe renaming the variable from "g" to something else provides the linux maintainers?
- Xirdus 6mo agoIt makes the exploit code more readable. We all love to laugh at C folks but for real, even Linux kernel maintainers care about readability.
- StableAlkyne 6mo agoIt's just sloppy. Readers are human, and little mistakes like this take away from the article. Then you add a nonexistent RHEL version, and it just isn't a good look. Which is a shame, because it's otherwise a very interesting vuln. Maybe you didn't care, but the length of this comment chain clearly shows that it matters. Effective communication is just as important as the engineering.
- john_strinlai 6mo agoagreed regarding the RHEL version! i just dont understand huffing and puffing over "os as g" in a 10-line poc script, and saying "well i would never approve this". its not enterprise code. its not code that will ever be used anywhere else, for anything. its sole purpose is to prove that the exploit is real, which it does! the rest of the information is in the actual vulnerability report. the poc is a courtesy to the reportee, so that they can confirm that the report itself isnt bullshit. evidently, given the downvotes i am getting, people think exploit scripts should be enterprise quality code. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ half of the reports i see flowing through mailing lists dont even have a poc. amazingly HN-like to be upset about a variable name
- akdev1l 6mo agoDisagree because to run the PoC you really ought to understand what it’s doing. And this code is not readable at all. It is failing at letting people confirm the exploit easily.
- john_strinlai 6mo ago>Disagree because to run the PoC you really ought to understand what it’s doing. that is contained in the report, which will look similar to the blog. the maintainers will have an open line of contact with the reporters as well. the poc is a small part of the entire report. its not like the linux maintainers only received this poc and have to work out the vulnerability from it alone. >It is failing at letting people confirm the exploit easily. it confirms the exploit incredibly easy. just run it, and you get confirmation.