• BrightCandle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are going to get sued for billions and this little stunt isn’t going to change that. Should have implemented proper software testing before you took ever corporate computer in the world, but companies like this always force their developers to rush instead of do the right thing and when it bites them expect that things will carry on as normal. I can’t see many renewals in their future.

      • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        …sorta. The complexity here is their driver is signed, but it’s also loading code from their channel file (that was all zeroed out), and it seems the necessary error checking wasn’t implemented.

        I haven’t yet got to the root cause they published, this is just what I gathered from the video of a retired MS kernel dev who posts stuff.

        Obviously with their design it allowed them to be flexible at the cost of playing with fire - I’m impressed they got away with it for so long, really

          • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, there’s some limits to what they could do while maintaining pace for the 0 day stuff…

            Some input validations would be the most basic things they should have done years ago. I’m aware of the hashing mature vendors do of any content they download for updates or deployments. Signature checking as well, and that’s before the code is even inspected - why don’t they include their automated tests they obviously aren’t using in the update as a sanity check client-side? (I’m not aware of anyone doing this or even if it’s possible without the rest of the IDE, stack, I’m no dev)