this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
212 points (94.9% liked)

Technology

59192 readers
2495 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Researchers at Truffle Security have found, or arguably rediscovered, that data from deleted GitHub repositories (public or private) and from deleted copies (forks) of repositories isn't necessarily deleted.

Joe Leon, a security researcher with the outfit, said in an advisory on Wednesday that being able to access deleted repo data – such as APIs keys – represents a security risk. And he proposed a new term to describe the alleged vulnerability: Cross Fork Object Reference (CFOR).

"A CFOR vulnerability occurs when one repository fork can access sensitive data from another fork (including data from private and deleted forks)," Leon explained.

For example, the firm showed how one can fork a repository, commit data to it, delete the fork, and then access the supposedly deleted commit data via the original repository.

The researchers also created a repo, forked it, and showed how data not synced with the fork continues to be accessible through the fork after the original repo is deleted. You can watch that particular demo.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Fijxu@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, forgejo. My hands are cold :s

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Fun fact, it comes from the Esperanto: forĝejo. Try typing that with cold fingers. :)

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Imagine creating a whole new "universal" language and using such shitty diacritics that nobody likes

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, kinda dumb. But they do have a relatively popular workaround: the x-system. So forĝejo becomes forgxejo (x = diacritic for the prev letter).

[–] amanda@aggregatet.org 1 points 3 months ago