points by doginasuit 6 hours ago | 0 comments
That is some unsavory buck passing. Virtually anyone that didn't ask claude to create the project can leak passwords, with 1,122 known customers that have been impacted. Whether it is standard or not is irrelevant, it is part of existing functionality and entirely foreseeable. I'd expect any company worth the opportunity for trust to clearly own the mistake.
[–] wyager 5 hours ago
Committing `.claude` is at least as dumb as committing `.keys`, so I don't think this is really in-scope
[–] doginasuit 5 hours ago
If you know it's there. It gets created on the fly when it is needed, so unless you know that is possible and needs to be gitignored, it could easily slip by.
[–] thenewnewguy 5 hours ago
Do you not review before committing/pushing?
[–] DrewADesign 4 hours ago
Saying a professional software developer is responsible for not committing secrets is reasonable. That said, these tool chains all seem to condition developers to offload much of that diligence to the tooling itself, which makes catching mistakes harder because you’re not as used to scanning for them. Secrets files have always been foot guns, and with automation-borne complacence, and vibe coders that don’t understand the problem, I imagine these things will become even more common.
[–] doginasuit 3 hours ago
This did not impact me. But if using a tool means that secrets can randomly appear in my project, then I am using the wrong tool.
[–] ozozozd 59 minutes ago
Correct stance.
Why would you use a tool that creates tedious and dangerous work for you?
“Oh you are just supposed to make up for Claude’s errors, and problem solved!”
[–] SV_BubbleTime 4 hours ago
Oh no, I moved all that manual tedious boring loser mentality stuff to the agent. Now Claude does it for me, and no strangely enough Claude didn’t tell me there was a problem!
[–] weird-eye-issue 3 hours ago
In these cases they probably just blindly committed everything themselves, if you asked Claude to review the uncommitted changes and do the commit itself it probably would have flagged this.
[–] fwip 45 minutes ago
> Often Claude commits the file itself. In 539 of the 1,105 repos with a real secret that we traced, a commit co-authored by Claude changed the file. Those commits name every recent model, from Sonnet 4.5 to Opus 5.5.
What do you make of that part of the article?
[–] post-it 2 hours ago
It's gitignored by default.
[–] TheRoque 2 hours ago
The default of who or what ? Git ignore is empty "by default", inexistant even
[–] post-it 1 hour ago
When Claude generates the file, it also generates a .gitignore for it or fills in the existing one.
[–] SoftTalker 4 hours ago
So you just routinely commit everything in the project, without looking at what it is?
[–] Gigachad 2 hours ago
My coworkers seem to
[–] Hizonner 2 hours ago
If you have stuff in your tree that's not part of your project's code, you're already dumb.
If it's keys or secrets of any kind, you're even dumber.
If it's in a hidden directory, you are even dumber still.
If you rely on somebody stupid enough to do any of that not to commit it, you have gone beyond the valley of the ultra-dumb. Actually that's true even if you rely on smart people not to do it.
You got your dumb card fully punched when you created `.keys` to begin with.
[–] thatsabadlook 3 hours ago