• floofloof@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    5 months ago

    All malicious extensions detected by the researchers were responsibly reported to Microsoft for removal. However, as of writing this, the vast majority remains available for download via the VSCode Marketplace.

    Ah, the Microsoft tradition of always having the wrong priorities.

    • plz1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      They didn’t put “AI” in the subject line of the emails, so Microsoft doesn’t care…

    • lysdexic@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Ah, the Microsoft tradition of always having the wrong priorities.

      I wouldn’t be too hard on Microsoft. The requirement to curate public package repositories only emerged somewhat recently, as demonstrated by the likes of npm, and putting in place a process to audit and pull out offending packages might not be straight-forward.

      I think the main take on this is to learn the lesson that it is not safe to install random software you come across online. Is this lesson new, though?

      • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think the main take on this is to learn the lesson that it is not safe to install random software you come across online. Is this lesson new, though?

        I think people often have a vaguely formed assumption that plugins are somehow sandboxed and less dangerous. But that all depends on the software hosting the plugin. There was a recent issue with a KDE theme wiping a user’s files which brought this to light. We can’t assume plugins or themes are any less dangerous than random executables.

        • biscuitswalrus
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Hold them all to account, no single points of failure. Make them all responsible.

          When talking about vscode especially, those users aren’t your mum and dad. They’re technology professionals or enthusiasts.

          With respect to vendors (Microsoft) for too long have they lived off an expectation that its always a end user or publisher responsibility, not theirs when they’re offering a brokering (store or whatever) service. They’ve tried using words like ‘custodian’ when they took the service to further detract from responsibility and fault.

          Vendors of routers and firewalls and other network connected IoT for the consumer space now are being legislatively enforced to start adhering to bare minimum responsible practices such as ‘push to change’ configuration updates and automated security firmware updates, of and the long awaited mandatory random password with reset on first configuration (no more admin/Admin).

          Is clear this burden will cost those providers. Good. Just like we should take a stance against polluters freely polluting, so too should we make providers take responsibility for reasonable security defaults instead of making the world less secure.

          That then makes it even more the users responsibility to be responsible for what they then do insecurely since security should be the default by design. Going outside of those bounds are at your own risk.

          Right now it’s a wild West, and telling what is and isn’t secure would be a roll of the dice since it’s just users telling users that they think it’s fine. Are you supposed to just trust a publisher? But what if they act in bad faith? That problem needs solving. Once an app/plugin/device has millions of people using it, it’s reputation is publicly seen as ok even if completely undeserved.

          Hmm rant over. I got a bit worked up.