[psd1]

Hi! Sorry to report this, but I've pushed a SQL injection vuln to prod when I was still very green.

In my defense, we trusted the input. But that's post-rationalisation, because I simply didn't know what I was doing at the time.

It gets worse. If I'd done it properly, my senior would have beaten me up in code review for "complexity". That was a man who would never use a screwdriver when a hammer was already in his hand.

[RajT88]

I once argued with a senior dev (later engineering manager, I guess he is a director of development now somewhere), that storing password hashes in unsalted SHA1 was bad.

His defense? "This system is internal only and never connected to the internet"

Senior titled devs don't necessarily know their shit.

[ryandrake]

A little off topic, but I love how you mention his career progression before sharing the example of his ignorance, because this seems to be a pretty common theme in tech companies (I've witnessed it more times than I can remember or count). The people I knew in my career who were most full of shit are pretty much all now Directors and VPs, enjoying a life of success, and the ones who were the most actually knowledgable are still grinding away as IC's, worried about layoffs. This industry is really bad about rewarding competence.

[meepmorp]

> This industry is really bad about rewarding competence.

If you promote the competent people, you leave the incompetent ones to do the actual work.

[noduerme]

The trick then is not hiring bozos in the first place.

[psd1]

The team I described in GGGP were all strong in the roles they were originally hired for. The company likes to promote internally, which mostly works out for them. This shit team was an edge case.

[noduerme]

This is a good counterpoint that explains why, maybe as roles change or companies grow, people who weren't exceptionally good at one role end up overseeing it. The pithy / laconic observation I was immediately responding to was pretty spot on though, and still seems to pertain (in general).

Breaking it down: That the most diligent / irreplaceable people who know the guts of the machine tend to be chained to their roles with occasional raises seems fairly logical from a C-Suite perspective. The tendency to promote incompetence - particularly overconfident incompetence - is the part that bears more scrutiny. If it were isolated to a few companies, it wouldn't be so relatable. I have a theory that it has to do with certain kinds of communication skills (specifically, bullshitting), being selected for in certain roles. And being able to write good code and explain why it has to be done that way requires the opposite of bullshitting.

[envsubst]

Non security expert here. Walk me through the attack scenario here.

The database has access control right? So only a few people in the org can read the data. And you are imagining a case where they:

a) find an inverse image of a password hash and use that login as another person to do something bad.

b) reverse the password from the hash to use in another context.

If a is an issue, why does this individual have sensitive data access in the first place? b is still unlikely. Any inverse image is unlikely to be the password if there is salting.

It sounds like an improvement could be made, but maybe not the highest priority. Can you inform me?

[Aeolun]

To be fair, I’ve pushed vulnerabilities to prod when considered a senior and with 10+ years of experience. Nobody is immune to their own stupidity and hubris.