I had no idea this issue had been identified. While I find this tool very useful, the project is seeming rather questionable to me now.

  • Quail4789@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    It matters because nobody is going to check the hashes for all of the files match whenever there’s a change so the maintainer can just replace them with whatever he wants.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      that’s what automation is for - nobody is going to manually check them, but anyone is able to automatically set something up to check their hashes in change… the fact that it’s possible that anyone is doing that now that it’s a known issue perhaps makes it less problematic as an attack vector

      • refalo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        That is true, but also nobody is doing it. Just like nobody is verifying Signal’s “reproducible builds”.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          15 hours ago

          are you sure?

          there could be thousands just waiting for a failure to come out and say “HEY THIS IS DODGY”

          • refalo@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            Yea because I tested it myself. Nobody else seems to care, and if they did, I would think there would be a public way to see regular test results regardless.

            I know this exists for some projects, but somehow nothing privacy-sensitive