this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
252 points (95.0% liked)

Programming

17492 readers
23 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
[–] Mischala@lemmy.nz 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's the crazy thing. This config can't ever been booted on a win10/11 machine before it was deployed to the entire world.

Not once, during development of the new rule, or in any sort of testing CS does. Then once again, never booted by MS during whatever verification process they (should) have before signing.

The first win11/10 to execute this code in the way it was intended to be used, was a customer's machine.

Insane.

[–] gedhrel@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Possibly the thing that was intended to be deployed was. What got pushed out was 40kB of all zeroes. Could've been corrupted some way down the CI chain.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Which definitely wouldn't have been a single developer's fault.

[–] gedhrel@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Developers aren't the ones at fault here.

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not the most at fault, but if you sign off on a shitty process, you are still partially responsible

[–] gedhrel@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

That depends entirely on the ability to execute change. CTO is the role that should be driving this.