> but it is better understood as exploiting the natural lack of verification in the GitHub web interface, which doesn’t show the authentic (and in this case malicious) source of a module version, as used by actual Go tooling.
That's a load of crap. It can never become a github issue that the Go ecosystem has chosen to make it look like the packages you pull come from github, but are actually diverted to be served by Google from some strange pull-through cache.
Calling this a "lack of verification in the GitHub web interfaces" completely inverts the abstraction layers and asks GitHub to implement specific features for your incorrect usecase.
Then there's the misnomer of a hash database being anywhere close to analogous to PGP signed sources. This is amateur level stuff.
delusional•44m ago
That's a load of crap. It can never become a github issue that the Go ecosystem has chosen to make it look like the packages you pull come from github, but are actually diverted to be served by Google from some strange pull-through cache.
Calling this a "lack of verification in the GitHub web interfaces" completely inverts the abstraction layers and asks GitHub to implement specific features for your incorrect usecase.
Then there's the misnomer of a hash database being anywhere close to analogous to PGP signed sources. This is amateur level stuff.