311
Real find in a website's javascript
(discuss.tchncs.de)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
311 points (98.4% liked)
Programmer Humor
32591 readers
926 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
What am I looking at here?
There's a string stating that the code should not be passed or the employee will be fired. I'd assume this was a test to see if an employee meant to be doing code review was actually doing them. Spoiler, they were not, as OP said they found this in production code.
I'd go a step further and I suspect it's a peppering string (i.e. fixed string you add to hashes to defeat rainbow tables). I'd really hope it isn't as you mentioned because gosh that sounds like a toxic workplace if someone is just leaving landmines around purely to get someone fired.
More like, you know damn well that Jim keeps passing code reviews without reading a line in them, he's been talked to, still does it, and you need something actionable to prove it so that you can get someone's ass in his chair who does their job.
From the stories I've heard from corporate software employees, this does sound like exactly the kind of thing you gotta do to show some manager the guy is buddy-buddy with that they're actually not doing their job. And even then they didn't listen.
Would that imply that all quality control is evil?
No, I don't think so - it's just a dick move to go out of your way to sabotage someone. If they're fucking up just visit their existing mistakes - don't waste time contriving new ones.
So when TSA sends fake guns and bombs through luggage, it's not qa, it's just a dick move to sabotage them?
My guess is a "solution" to the age-old problem of needing to store a secret in a file that the user can download, thus making the entire system insecure.
This "solution" appears to be either that the string itself is so outrageous that the user would not believe that it's the real secret when it is in fact the real secret, leveraging security through obscurity, or else it's there in place of the real secret that cannot be revealed under pain of ~~death~~ firing, and therefore is accidentally being used instead of that intended secret... so it's not secret after all.
Unless they're doing something incredibly clever to substitute that secret string for the real thing when the time is right and doing it in such a way that the user can't intercept, someone's getting fired.
No, it's not. It's part of React internals that you shouldn't use because your app will break. It's a warning for developers using React. It's not a secret of any kind.