News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A routine gem update ended up creating $73k worth of subscriptions. Parent comment

Re:A routine gem update ended up creating $73k worth of subs... by gedy on Saturday January 08, 2022 @02:47AM (#29849582)
No, this is particularly bad in Ruby. Many languages, esp. compiled do not have the same issues.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A routine gem update ended up creating $73k worth of subs... by Gigachad on Saturday January 08, 2022 @03:24AM (#29849777)
That’s often the case but for this particular issue, it could have happened in any language because it’s still returning the exact same type. Its an array of the same record type in both instances.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A routine gem update ended up creating $73k worth of subs... by emodendroket on Saturday January 08, 2022 @02:54PM (#29855484)
Ultimately this is more social than technical.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A routine gem update ended up creating $73k worth of subs... by dagmx on Saturday January 08, 2022 @03:09AM (#29849706)
What language would avoid the problem?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A routine gem update ended up creating $73k worth of subs... by chucke on Saturday January 08, 2022 @04:04AM (#29849945)
Java and log4j would like a word with you.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A routine gem update ended up creating $73k worth of subs... by jorams on Saturday January 08, 2022 @07:28AM (#29851036)
The problem with log4j is that they didn't introduce a breaking change, allowing vulnerable functionality the maintainers already considered problematic to stick around.
[ Parent | on HN ]