Please read the LLM output critically instead of doubling down on it.
Your defense-in-depth framing makes no sense. If .git/config or similar mechanisms are the attack vector, then adding more editor safeguards would be treating a symptom, as the real problem is git's trust model. The "users don't think about git when using editors" argument also proves too much. Many users also do not think about PATH, shell configs, dynamic linker, or their font renderer either, but you cannot make editors bulletproof against all transitive dependencies...
Seriously, it is actually backwards. Git is where the defense belongs, not every downstream tool that happens to invoke git. Asking editors to sandbox git's behavior is exactly as absurd as it sounds.
And BTW, "technically AV:L but feels like RCE" is your usual blog-post hype. It either is, or is not.
Comments
Please read the LLM output critically instead of doubling down on it.
Your defense-in-depth framing makes no sense. If .git/config or similar mechanisms are the attack vector, then adding more editor safeguards would be treating a symptom, as the real problem is git's trust model. The "users don't think about git when using editors" argument also proves too much. Many users also do not think about PATH, shell configs, dynamic linker, or their font renderer either, but you cannot make editors bulletproof against all transitive dependencies...
Seriously, it is actually backwards. Git is where the defense belongs, not every downstream tool that happens to invoke git. Asking editors to sandbox git's behavior is exactly as absurd as it sounds.
And BTW, "technically AV:L but feels like RCE" is your usual blog-post hype. It either is, or is not.