Developer posts secret key on GitHub, loses $40K in 2 minutes - eviltoast
  • Web3 developer Brian Guan lost $40,000 after accidentally posting his wallet’s secret keys publicly on GitHub, with the funds being drained in just two minutes.
  • The crypto community’s reactions were mixed, with some offering support and others mocking Guan’s previous comments about developers using AI tools like ChatGPT for coding.
  • This incident highlights ongoing debates about security practices and the role of AI in software development within the crypto community.
  • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    5 months ago

    Even though that’s a good extra precaution, per person config data, such as keys, should be stored outside of the repo, eg. in the parent directory or better in the users home dir. There is zero reason to have it in the repo. Even if you use a VM/containers, you can add the config in an extra mount/share.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      What’s the general consensus on storing encrypted data in the repo with the keys outside? I see people recommend that but I’m too paranoid and my secrets are very small in size so it hasn’t been necessary.

      • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        the format of the encrypted file can give the attackers an advantage. if your code reads the decrypted file, the attacker can guess the first line is a comment or the name of a setting. a savvy person can combine that with the algorithm to perform a “known plaintext attack”, for example by generating a number of possible passwords that would lead to files starting like that.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s smart. Anyone trying that should definitely have a machine-generated strong password!

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s not quite the definition of known plaintext attack (cryptography nerd here), that’s bruteforce with a “crib” to use older terminology (known patterns which allows you to test candidate keys).

          A known plaintext attack is defined as an attack on the algorithm to extract the key faster than bruteforce with analytical attacks.

      • Takios@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’ve seen that done for configuration management like Salt or Ansible. The repos for that were always hosted on internal Gitlab instances though.

      • elephantium@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I see some of that in my job. We put encrypted data in settings files, and the keys for decryption are provided on the VMs where we deploy. The developers never actually see the keys.

        I suppose it’s as secure as the process for managing the production VMs, assuming the encryption isn’t just md5!