this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
396 points (94.4% liked)
linuxmemes
21282 readers
624 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
sudo
in 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
I know you're be facetious here and I'm ignorant to actual application security methodology. I do have to ask though, when you are looking for something in code that could be a security risk, isn't it possible to look for methods or functions used to lookup DNS, outbound network calls, or even libraries used to obfuscate code? It seems to me that most programmers wouldn't go through lengths to obfuscate their code and would want it to be readable/maintainable, so doing so would be a red flag.
Obviously no one is going to search for "evil spyware" when auditing code. Your point stands it is not as simple as that.
You're totally right, I just think you underestimate how long it takes to rigorously audit a whole codebase. Let's say you look for outvound network calls. Now you need to figure out for all of them whether they are malicious, which will require specific domain knowledge. And that's assuming you find them all, the network call could be hidden away in a dependency. None of this is impossible but it requires a serious effort.