ゲーム開発の安全性を高める第一歩〜Snyk導入のすすめ〜 #Snyk
https://dev.classmethod.jp/articles/snyk-snyk-game-2512-kdpn/
[アップデート] SnykでCLIのスキャン結果をWeb UIにアップロードできるようになりました #snyk
https://dev.classmethod.jp/articles/snyk-cli-web-ui-snyk-kdpn/
Probely CLIをインストールして脆弱性結果を確認してみた
https://dev.classmethod.jp/articles/probely-cli-kdpn-2508/
Probely入門!DASTツール「Probely」を試してみた。
https://dev.classmethod.jp/articles/probely-dast-kdpn-2508/
I need advice in how to act in the following case:
A medium-big software vendor using #golang claims that the reported CVEs by #trivy and MS defender on their statically linked binaries are false-positives.
Only #snyk would give a "correct" result.
They are not willing to share their go.mod file to verify they are not using package version XY in them.
I am somewhat skeptical about this argument. What are my best chances to find a verifiable proof to this (other than attempting to exploit the vuln?)
Are trivy and MS Defender known for false-positives in such cases?
I am in a weird spot where multiple scanners flag (multiple) binaries, the company says "all good, nothing there, error on your (scanner) side" and I need to report to the security team with 2:1 scanners in favor of the vuln being present.
most of it was in the dependencies but there was some interesting ones in code. I think I will clean that as a project.