Artwork

内容由Security Weekly Productions and Security Weekly提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 Security Weekly Productions and Security Weekly 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal
Player FM -播客应用
使用Player FM应用程序离线!

Deceptive Diffs From Subversive Submitters - ASW #148

38:16
 
分享
 

Manage episode 290878507 series 2086046
内容由Security Weekly Productions and Security Weekly提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 Security Weekly Productions and Security Weekly 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal

We start with the article about "Researchers Secretly Tried To Add Vulnerabilities to Linux Kernel, Ended Up Getting Banned" and explore its range of issues from ethics to securing huge, distributed software projects. It's hardly novel to point out that bad actors can attempt to introduce subtle and exploitable bugs. More generally, we've also seen impacts from package owners who have revoked their code, like NPM leftpad, or who transfer ownership to actors who later on abuse the package's reputation, as we've seen in Chrome Plugins. So, what could have been a better research focus? In the era of more pervasive fuzzing, how much should we continue to rely on people for security code review?

For additional resources please visit:

Deceptive Diffs From Subversive Submitters - ASW #148 Featuring: John Kinsella (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jlkinsel), Mike Shema (https://www.linkedin.com/in/zombie).

Read the research paper at https://github.com/QiushiWu/QiushiWu.github.io/blob/main/papers/OpenSourceInsecurity.pdf

Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/asw for all the latest episodes!

Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/asw148

  continue reading

575集单集

Artwork
icon分享
 
Manage episode 290878507 series 2086046
内容由Security Weekly Productions and Security Weekly提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 Security Weekly Productions and Security Weekly 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal

We start with the article about "Researchers Secretly Tried To Add Vulnerabilities to Linux Kernel, Ended Up Getting Banned" and explore its range of issues from ethics to securing huge, distributed software projects. It's hardly novel to point out that bad actors can attempt to introduce subtle and exploitable bugs. More generally, we've also seen impacts from package owners who have revoked their code, like NPM leftpad, or who transfer ownership to actors who later on abuse the package's reputation, as we've seen in Chrome Plugins. So, what could have been a better research focus? In the era of more pervasive fuzzing, how much should we continue to rely on people for security code review?

For additional resources please visit:

Deceptive Diffs From Subversive Submitters - ASW #148 Featuring: John Kinsella (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jlkinsel), Mike Shema (https://www.linkedin.com/in/zombie).

Read the research paper at https://github.com/QiushiWu/QiushiWu.github.io/blob/main/papers/OpenSourceInsecurity.pdf

Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/asw for all the latest episodes!

Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/asw148

  continue reading

575集单集

所有剧集

×
 
Loading …

欢迎使用Player FM

Player FM正在网上搜索高质量的播客,以便您现在享受。它是最好的播客应用程序,适用于安卓、iPhone和网络。注册以跨设备同步订阅。

 

快速参考指南