Most active commenters
  • tbossanova(3)

←back to thread

1369 points universesquid | 15 comments | | HN request time: 1.153s | source | bottom
Show context
joaomoreno ◴[] No.45170585[source]
From sindresorhus:

You can run the following to check if you have the malware in your dependency tree:

`rg -u --max-columns=80 _0x112fa8`

Requires ripgrep:

`brew install rg`

https://github.com/chalk/chalk/issues/656#issuecomment-32668...

replies(8): >>45171142 #>>45171275 #>>45171304 #>>45171841 #>>45172110 #>>45172189 #>>45174730 #>>45175821 #
1. cgijoe ◴[] No.45171275[source]
Sorry, I am unfamiliar with ripgrep. Is this simply scanning for the string `_0x112fa8`? Could we do the same thing with normal grep -r?
replies(2): >>45171316 #>>45171334 #
2. skrebbel ◴[] No.45171316[source]
yes. ripgrep just does it faster, is all.
replies(2): >>45173163 #>>45173857 #
3. naikrovek ◴[] No.45172662[source]
I feel like you were trying to help here, but anyone can do this for themselves. Providing information in this way sort of indicates that you don't believe that the person you're replying to can do it on their own, and for that reason it's considered rude.
replies(2): >>45174080 #>>45176176 #
4. hinkley ◴[] No.45173163[source]
Make it work, make it right, make it fast.

For security checks, the first 2 out of 3 is just fine.

replies(1): >>45174327 #
5. nothrabannosir ◴[] No.45173857[source]
But also respects .gitignore by default so I’m not sure you want to use ripgrep to scan your node_modules
replies(2): >>45174032 #>>45174067 #
6. Fishkins ◴[] No.45174032{3}[source]
For others who didn't know, the -u flag in the OP's command makes it so ripgrep _will_ search files even if they're gitignored
replies(1): >>45177926 #
7. AkshatJ27 ◴[] No.45174067{3}[source]
Isn't the intended behaviour of original comment checking the node_modules folder for the "infected" string.
8. skygazer ◴[] No.45174080{3}[source]
Also, HN hates machine generated replies, especially the lengthy and overly verbose slop variety -- I think that probably eclipsed any perceived rudeness.
9. Aeolun ◴[] No.45174327{3}[source]
Sure, but if you can get the last for free, why not?
10. tbossanova ◴[] No.45176176{3}[source]
I see what you mean, but I actually think there is a place for copy/pasting AI responses. I think of it as a kind of cache, surely a HN comment being served to n users means less resources used and faster access than if all n did their own AI query. But then of course you don’t get exactly your preference e.g. you might prefer a terser response than what is pasted here. Interesting to see how the etiquette around this plays out over time.
replies(1): >>45177657 #
11. vasco ◴[] No.45177657{4}[source]
If you ever wanted to share an AI response, you probably should share your prompt, not the response. But likely you should not share anything, for the reasons already explained. Your argument about saving energy makes zero sense if you have any understanding of orders of magnitude but I won't share what AI says about it.
replies(1): >>45192166 #
12. postalcoder ◴[] No.45177926{4}[source]
-u searches through ignored files

-uu searches through ignored and hidden files (eg dotfiles)

-uuu searches through ignored, hidden, and binary files (ie everything)

13. tbossanova ◴[] No.45192166{5}[source]
Ironically you are being incredibly rude trying to support an argument that posting AI responses is rude. I guess we can conclude you know nothing about anything.
replies(1): >>45193500 #
14. vasco ◴[] No.45193500{6}[source]
I never mention rudeness, I dont give a shit about random people online being "rude". It's just something I don't like, so I shared my opinion.
replies(1): >>45285071 #
15. tbossanova ◴[] No.45285071{7}[source]
Still ironic. Just so you know I might have considered what you said and changed my mind, but being rude made me dismiss you immediately. Just sharing my opinion