The other thing to watch out for is if you’re splitting state between volumes, but i think you’ve already ruled that out.

I’d be cautious about the “kill -9” reasoning. It isn’t necessarily equivalent to yanking power.

Contents of application memory lost, yes. Contents of unflushed OS buffers, no. Your db will be fsyncing (or moral equivalent thereof) if it’s worth the name.

This is an aside; backing up from a volume snapshot is half a reasonable idea. (The other half is ensuring that you can restore from the backup, regularly, automatically, and the third half is ensuring that your automated validation can be relied on.)

The test case purported to be bad data, which you presumably want to test the correct behaviour of your dearchiver against.

Nothing this did looks to involve memory safety. It uses features like ifunc to hook behaviour.

The notion of reproducible CI is interesting, but there’s nothing preventing this setup from repeatedly producing the same output in (say) a debian package build environment.

There are many signatures here that look “obvious” with hindsight, but ultimately this comes down to establishing trust. Technical sophistication aside, this was a very successful attack against that teust foundation.

It’s definitely the case that the stack of C tooling for builds (CMakeLists.txt, autotools) makes obfuscating content easier. You might point at modern build tooling like cargo as an alternative - however, build.rs and proc macros are not typically sandboxed at present. I think it’d be possible to replicate the effects of this attack using that tooling.