this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
260 points (95.1% liked)

Programming

17669 readers
191 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Check Crowdstrike's blurb about the 1-10-60 rule.

You can bet that they have a KPI that says they can deliver a patch in under 15m; that can preclude testing.

Although that would have caught it, what happened here is that 40k of nuls got signed and delivered as config. Which means that unparseable config on the path from CnC to ring0 could cause a crash and was never covered by a test.

It's a hell of a miss, even if you're prepared to accept the argument about testing on the critical path.

(There is an argument that in some cases you want security aystems to fail closed; however that's an extreme case - PoS systems don't fall into that - and you want to opt into that explicitly, not due to a test omission.)

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's the crazy thing. This config can't ever been booted on a win10/11 machine before it was deployed to the entire world.

Not once, during development of the new rule, or in any sort of testing CS does. Then once again, never booted by MS during whatever verification process they (should) have before signing.

The first win11/10 to execute this code in the way it was intended to be used, was a customer's machine.

Insane.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Possibly the thing that was intended to be deployed was. What got pushed out was 40kB of all zeroes. Could've been corrupted some way down the CI chain.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Which definitely wouldn't have been a single developer's fault.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Developers aren't the ones at fault here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not the most at fault, but if you sign off on a shitty process, you are still partially responsible

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

That depends entirely on the ability to execute change. CTO is the role that should be driving this.