this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
755 points (97.5% liked)
linuxmemes
21613 readers
441 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The way this reads I think the company did not actually provide a good sandboxed environemt. So when they
rm -rf /'d the thing they actually deleted a lot of stuff the recruiters still needed (likely the pentest environments for other candidates). Because imo that's the only reason I can think of to just outright ban a candidate from applying for any other role at the company.You should ban anyone who tries this regardless of the outcome. There is always a small chance they did it on purpose trying to cause damage. There is no benefit by giving them another chance, you just riks giving them the possibility of doing more damage. If the thing was a mistake, the person will learn from it and find another job.
If the task would have been to find general security risks this would have counted. I mean, he did some serious harm, but he was able to find a security issue.
I think there is kind of an assumption that the scenario is "outside host gains privileged access" so there's not really a security issue with some attacker deleting root on their own box.
If it has been done properly you're right. If this also affected the host machine it is a security issue.
They did but it might have been a good idea to prove that the command works instead of actually doing it.
Yeah so is tossing a molotov on thier machines, "found a security issue not firproofing everything"
We'll I'm this case too, if true, the person didn't know anything about the job they were aplyiyfor and tried to cheat their way into the company. Also not really great.
To be honest, considering the role they're applying for, I would reject their job application too even if it occurred inside a sandboxed environment.
They should know exactly what
rm -rfdoes. The fact they didn't and they still arbitrary ran the command anyway... massive red flags. Could even say he failed to twart a social engineering attack.The two cases, they knew what it was and they did it maliciously. They didn't know what they were doing and got socially engineered in the process. Both cases are cause for failure.
To me it reads like the recruiter thought the person was a troll and banned them.
I mean it reads like a shitpost to me lol.