this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
239 points (94.8% liked)
Programming
17374 readers
151 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wouldn't be so quick to write it off.
It's a proof of concept showing the weaknesses in Microsoft's vetting process for extensions published on the store. They then used the process to get pseudo-malicious code inside hundreds of organisations (not hundred of installs) some of which are high profile.
Microsoft doesn't have a vetting process for publishing extensions in the store. Maybe the failure is that people assume they do?
Surely you mean "that Microsoft does not make it clear that they don't"?
Maybe, but I think the only app store that does vet apps is the Apple one, so that should be the default expectation.
And I think even they wouldn't manually look for something like this. They're mainly concerned about people breaking the commercial rules.
At the time of the article, the extension listed around 300 hundred installation on the VS marketplace. There is a lot of bots downloading packages, one extension i contribute to, and nobody use it except 3 peoples, have been indicated to be downloaded 238 times.
If you look at the number of extensions available on the vscode marketplace, and the false positive they listed as "malicious code" (read the code attentively), I'm sure my own extension will show up in their "malicious code" (it isn't)