6 ms·
The end is really hilarious. Google had a stupid frontend-only validation, it seems.
by sam_lowry_ 24d ago
The end is really hilarious. Google had a stupid frontend-only validation, it seems.
- chmod775 24d agoSince Google themselves claim that's a security check, there's a bug bounty here. The author of that article missed their chance making Google eat their words.
- tzs 23d agoOr he missed the chance to get Google to move that check to the back end and then when it is time to renew find out that he cannot, if he’s lucky enough for it to not break earlier.
- pigbearpig 24d agoI was under the impression Google engineers went through a rigorous hiring process, yet this is the sort of thing you get from lowest bidder consultants who have inexperienced devs.
- anon48293 24d agoNah Google and Microsoft have been offshoring to India for years. And sorry, but the developers there suck.
- twostorytower 24d agoAll that leetcode, whiteboarding, and Googly-style interview questions just to put front-end validation for security.
- zerocrates 24d agoThis seems like something more intended to avoid a bunch of pointless attempted signups from people who don't understand what having a domain means who then won't be able to do the later step where you verify that you actually own it. A client-side check's not so unreasonable for that kind of thing. Of course then you still want the list to be accurate and/or actually have some working support flow that results in an overzealous filter getting fixed. The code suggests that they do or did have a process at some point: the list of specific domains is an override that allows domains that would otherwise match one of the regexes and get blocked.
- chadgpt3 23d agoYeah but they said it was important security.