6 ms·
It’s pretty absurd for github to suggest that you should go through multiple steps to disable commands to log untrusted output. [1] Poor form to expect develope
by abcxjeb284 6y ago
It’s pretty absurd for github to suggest that you should go through multiple steps to disable commands to log untrusted output. [1] Poor form to expect developers to understand and check for a new way that they need to sanitize their input rather than Github fixing it (possibly in a backwards incompatible way)
At a minimum they should provide a shell script (`show $XYZ`) and a js function that handles generating those tokens and enabling/disabling workflow commands for you.
[1] https://github.blog/changelog/2020-10-01-github-actions-deprecating-set-env-and-add-path-commands/ https://github.blog/changelog/2020-10-01-github-actions-depr...
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoIMO at the very least they should have an org-wide option in settings to disable command interpretation.
- mjgs 6y agoYeah the ability to disable the insecure commands is crucial. That should be the first thing they should do. Probably a lot of people aren’t even using this functionality in their workflows anyway. I think the only one of these commands that I actually use is setting outputs, and I don’t even use that very often. There should also be a way to see which commands have been triggered via stdout, so you can at least see what happened if something malicious happens.