11–20 of 202 posts
This sounds interesting and twisted in some sense 1. A start up is validating a service provider to ensure that they are secure enough so that they can trust them before signing up for their service 2. The service provider is already trusted by so many big name companies who handed over their data, the customers data to them Should it not be other way around? On a different note, the finding is not just one off absol…
That is great marketing for strix, pretty bad for baseten. I don't think someone can have a better story to advertise their own security product. Did not know about strix but I am going to look it up now. Might add it to my stack.
Yeah I have seen this issue a few times. If you use Docker build arguments that way add `--provenance=false` to get rid of all that build metadata. Build secrets are still better since they allow you to scope the secret inside of the Dockerfile. Also, the metadata can be useful to inspect images.
i quite liked using strix. last time i tried it, deepseek was a mess and bloated the context with nonsense. that was ~5 months ago, i wonder how it performs now
> Baseten handled this well. The timeline was: > July 13, 11:10 PM: I reported the live basetenbot token, the public Harbor project, and the repository permissions. > July 14, morning: Baseten made the Harbor project private. I flagged that the token itself still worked. > July 14, 4:34 PM: Anton from Baseten Security confirmed the issue as critical and said they had made the Harbor project private and rotated the to…
Earlier in the article, it mentions that Baseten is valued at $13B. They can't dig into their couch cushions to give a few thousand dollars to the researcher privately disclosing a bug that let an attacker escalate to admin in their GitHub org?
This sends the message that honest researchers should not waste their time looking for vulnerabilities in Baseten, but it's a good target for criminals who want to monetize these vulnerabilities.
From TFA:
> That token had admin and push access to Baseten's main product repo, the GitOps repo that drives their clusters, and their Homebrew tap, plus read/write access to other private repositories including specific repos per customers.
> The image build dated to March 2023, and the token still worked when we found it in July 2026.
What are the legal implications here?
I get how these choices might be the local optimum for a desired UX, but damn is it depressing to extrapolate where software as a whole is going.
That is great marketing for strix, pretty bad for baseten. I don't think someone can have a better story to advertise their own security product. Did not know about strix but I am going to look it up now. Might add it to my stack.
Let us know if you have any feedback!
Baseten carries the Soc 2 Type II and HIPAA Compliant logos on its front page. They also have logos for customers including: OpenEvidence (medical related, used by almost 2/3 of physicians in the US, claim HIPAA compliance), Harvey (legal related, claim "binding terms on data protection, data access, incident response SLAs, and other controls aligned with SOC2, ISO, GDPR and other standards.") From TFA: > That token…