you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I wouldn't be so quick to write it off.

It's a proof of concept showing the weaknesses in Microsoft's vetting process for extensions published on the store. They then used the process to get pseudo-malicious code inside hundreds of organisations (not hundred of installs) some of which are high profile.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Microsoft doesn't have a vetting process for publishing extensions in the store. Maybe the failure is that people assume they do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Surely you mean "that Microsoft does not make it clear that they don't"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    Maybe, but I think the only app store that does vet apps is the Apple one, so that should be the default expectation.

    And I think even they wouldn't manually look for something like this. They're mainly concerned about people breaking the commercial rules.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago*

    inside hundreds of organisations (not hundred of installs)

    At the time of the article, the extension listed around 300 hundred installation on the VS marketplace. There is a lot of bots downloading packages, one extension i contribute to, and nobody use it except 3 peoples, have been indicated to be downloaded 238 times.

    If you look at the number of extensions available on the vscode marketplace, and the false positive they listed as "malicious code" (read the code attentively), I'm sure my own extension will show up in their "malicious code" (it isn't)

  • source
  • parent