You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Does this issue reproduce at the latest version of golang.org/x/vuln?
yes
What operating system and processor architecture are you using (go env)?
not platform specific
What did you do?
code organization related
What did you expect to see?
fingerprinting should ideally be used when choosing how to parse an input to the binary mode. This would make the code cleaner and logic more precise, especially if we add more formats in the future.
What did you see instead?
We currently try to parse the input to a Go binary and, if that does not work, we try to parse the blob. If that fails, then we say that we don't recognize the input. This is not exactly clean and it won't cover precisely the (very rare) cases where, say, the input is a blob or a Go binary but parsing fails due to system issues.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
govulncheck version
govulncheck@v0.0.0-53a5385d13db-20231213181115
Does this issue reproduce at the latest version of golang.org/x/vuln?
yes
What operating system and processor architecture are you using (
go env
)?What did you do?
code organization related
What did you expect to see?
fingerprinting should ideally be used when choosing how to parse an input to the binary mode. This would make the code cleaner and logic more precise, especially if we add more formats in the future.
What did you see instead?
We currently try to parse the input to a Go binary and, if that does not work, we try to parse the blob. If that fails, then we say that we don't recognize the input. This is not exactly clean and it won't cover precisely the (very rare) cases where, say, the input is a blob or a Go binary but parsing fails due to system issues.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: