Re:Remote Code Execution Vulnerability in Google They Are No...
by vsl on Monday April 17, 2023 @01:05AM
(#35597028)
> The problem described in the post isn't the fault of package naming schemes
If PyPI used Java-like scheme with domain ownership verification, Google would presumably use com.google.* namespace for their private stuff and it wouldn’t be possible to introduce malicious package this way.
So the described issue arguably is a consequence of that.
If PyPI used Java-like scheme with domain ownership verification, Google would presumably use com.google.* namespace for their private stuff and it wouldn’t be possible to introduce malicious package this way.
So the described issue arguably is a consequence of that.