text
stringlengths
0
2.35k
[2425.28 --> 2426.38] That is a little bit
[2426.38 --> 2427.74] sparking joy
[2427.74 --> 2428.56] to know that
[2428.56 --> 2429.52] even hackers use
[2429.52 --> 2430.72] the best practices.
[2431.10 --> 2431.60] But it's true
[2431.60 --> 2432.20] that errors
[2432.20 --> 2434.08] have a lot of information
[2434.08 --> 2434.84] in them.
[2434.84 --> 2435.94] Is that something
[2435.94 --> 2437.76] that, as a developer,
[2438.02 --> 2438.98] you are not seeing?
[2439.24 --> 2440.02] Do you see a lot
[2440.02 --> 2440.96] of co-workers
[2440.96 --> 2442.30] and code you receive
[2442.30 --> 2443.40] where the error checking
[2443.40 --> 2444.28] is just bypassed
[2444.28 --> 2445.30] and not used at all?
[2445.68 --> 2446.86] No, usually those things
[2446.86 --> 2447.84] will not pass
[2447.84 --> 2449.34] peer review,
[2449.50 --> 2450.66] but I just don't know
[2450.66 --> 2451.76] enough whether hackers
[2451.76 --> 2452.60] do peer review,
[2452.72 --> 2452.94] you know,
[2453.04 --> 2454.40] so that is interesting.
[2455.14 --> 2456.00] Well, you know,
[2456.40 --> 2457.34] this is what I've seen.
[2457.44 --> 2458.12] It's going to be
[2458.12 --> 2459.20] anecdotal at best.
[2459.62 --> 2460.08] Of course,
[2460.18 --> 2460.32] you know,
[2460.32 --> 2461.08] there are always going
[2461.08 --> 2462.36] to be hackers out there
[2462.36 --> 2463.18] that do things
[2463.18 --> 2464.22] their own way,
[2464.38 --> 2465.32] their own bad way,
[2465.52 --> 2466.48] just like real-world
[2466.48 --> 2467.72] developers that work
[2467.72 --> 2469.38] on other legitimate projects.
[2470.00 --> 2471.02] And so I can only speak
[2471.02 --> 2472.58] about the few malware
[2472.58 --> 2473.78] programs that I have seen
[2473.78 --> 2474.80] and for which I can say
[2474.80 --> 2475.38] that they looked
[2475.38 --> 2476.38] pretty well developed
[2476.38 --> 2477.60] as far as I was concerned.
[2478.46 --> 2479.64] But, like,
[2479.70 --> 2480.16] there is bound
[2480.16 --> 2480.78] to be somewhere
[2480.78 --> 2481.44] out there
[2481.44 --> 2482.30] that is going to be
[2482.30 --> 2483.62] writing the most
[2483.62 --> 2484.68] despicable Go code
[2484.68 --> 2485.40] you can think of.
[2487.46 --> 2488.38] It does, of course,
[2488.44 --> 2488.88] make sense.
[2488.98 --> 2489.34] But still,
[2489.40 --> 2490.02] I'm happy to hear
[2490.02 --> 2491.48] that generally good practices
[2491.48 --> 2492.06] are followed.
[2492.06 --> 2492.52] everywhere.
[2493.20 --> 2493.76] Another thing
[2493.76 --> 2494.70] that I wanted to ask
[2494.70 --> 2495.40] about that is
[2495.40 --> 2496.48] how does this represent
[2496.48 --> 2497.06] in assembly,
[2497.64 --> 2498.32] given that this is
[2498.32 --> 2499.36] generally not a very
[2499.36 --> 2500.84] common practice?
[2501.10 --> 2501.58] Do you,
[2502.30 --> 2502.60] I guess,
[2502.64 --> 2503.28] because you don't see
[2503.28 --> 2503.84] lots of errors,
[2503.90 --> 2504.86] you basically don't see
[2504.86 --> 2506.22] the representation of this?
[2506.86 --> 2507.00] Well,
[2507.10 --> 2508.10] the way I see it
[2508.10 --> 2508.92] is that
[2508.92 --> 2511.80] when I look
[2511.80 --> 2513.04] at the assembly code,
[2513.62 --> 2514.38] most of the times,
[2514.68 --> 2516.02] since I'm not a Go developer,
[2516.28 --> 2517.16] I have to look up
[2517.16 --> 2517.70] the functions
[2517.70 --> 2518.38] that are being called.
[2518.76 --> 2518.82] Right?
[2519.06 --> 2520.32] Sometimes the names
[2520.32 --> 2521.38] are self-explanatory,
[2521.38 --> 2522.80] but most of the times
[2522.80 --> 2523.78] I have to go to the
[2523.78 --> 2524.62] Go documentation,
[2524.88 --> 2525.52] which, by the way,
[2525.58 --> 2526.80] I think is extremely well done.
[2527.16 --> 2528.18] Every time I look for
[2528.18 --> 2529.22] a function documentation,
[2529.22 --> 2529.96] I find it,
[2530.06 --> 2531.32] which is always a good thing.
[2531.68 --> 2532.30] There are languages
[2532.30 --> 2533.74] where you try to find stuff