4 ms·

> there should be a feature request for Github to provide a prompt in case Github detects sensitive information in the code hosted. Sure, just enumerate any an

• lambda 12y ago
  > Alternatively, don't commit passwords/API-keys/sensitive-info to your repo. This is, of course, the right answer. However, it's frustrating that several frameworks make this very easy to get wrong. Anything that has an application.yml, database.yml, or similar configuration file that normally lives within the same directory as the source code, and which is intended to contain credentials, means that lots of people will make that mistake. It's one of the fundamental errors that you see so often in web frameworks like Rails, this whole idea of mixing application code and configuration files into one big tree. I don't know how this practice caught on, but it has, and it so frequently causes mistakes, both big ones like accidentally publishing credentials, and simply frustrating ones like confusing the difference between application code and configuration in ways that make it more difficult to have multiple local configurations and updating the application code independently.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
• jemfinch 12y ago
  > Sure, just enumerate any and all possible types of sensitive data False dichotomy. It doesn't have to be "everything" or "nothing". An 80% solution here is better than nothing. I still find it useful that gmail warns me before I send an email without an attachment if I've written "I've attached" in an email. Can gmail detect with 100% accuracy if I intended to send an attachment? Of course not. But the 80% solution here still does me and lots of other people a lot of good.
  • mkal_tsr 12y ago
    80/20 rule goes a looooooong way, but relying on a 3rd party to handle your infosec is terribly misguided. Offloading your net/infoseq issues to a 3rd party doesn't guarantee you understand the attack surface nor mitigation steps. The advantage of doing it yourself is you learn and integrate knowledge as you go. Yes, more error prone, but imo it is more lasting as you (generally) retain the knowledge as time goes on. The issue with relying on a 3rd party is it becomes a "don't-care" because 'someone' else is taking care of it for you (github, sr. sw engr, sysadmin, etc.). There will never be a 100%-fool-proof "Did you mean to commit this sensitive unicode string?" but getting in front of that with a, "ok, I've checked my code, ran my tests, pruned the sensitive data, is there anything I'm missing?" will go a long way both in present and future times. There's an issue with your example. Google looks for the substr 'attach', but does it know that a file with a string 20 chars from the newline 50 lines deep with two single quotes is actually your root password? There's a world of difference between keying off of a word/phrase and understanding the context of a larger document+metadata. Trusting computers to do the latter will result in bad times for all, while learning for yourself can help spread the knowledge to those that are both technically inclined or not (infosec is everyone's issue!).
    • jemfinch 12y ago
      > but relying on a 3rd party to handle your infosec is terribly misguided. No one's suggesting anything like that. It's just a basic protection that Github could offer its users, because its users are humans, and humans make mistakes.
      • mkal_tsr 12y ago
        But that's my point. It's not basic because it's so context dependent (hence the comment about the regex/functions). No matter how clever you get with your pattern matching, you're going to have to always play catch-up with Web Framework N+1's format / weird-ass package manager. The dual approach is the only sensible approach because it expands your coverage. The important thing to this is to internalize the knowledge learned from 3rd parties and integrate that into your native process / tools, but not everyone will do that. It'd be grand if we could say, "yeah, they should take care of my security for me because I'm paying them" but reality is a bitch. It doesn't matter what they were 'supposed' to do if there was an infosec leak or attack, you can't ctrl-z that (set of) event(s) and that info is out there, so it must be fixed (re-roll credentials, regen keys/certs, etc) and accounted for next time. There really is no 'getting ahead' but 'being less behind' will at least help mitigate getting eaten from the herd ;-)
• nutanc 12y ago
  80:20 rule.I am sure, if we check for api_key,password(variants),key should help 80% of the people from making mistakes
  • palunon 12y ago
    Yeah, but you write api_key all over your code. The point were you define it is sensitive, but the place where you use it are not.