Why does my CVE scanner flood me with alerts for code paths my app never runs?
Возможность
Software composition analysis tools scan every package in the dependency tree and report every known CVE, but they rarely trace whether the application ever calls the vulnerable function. Industry data and 2025 research show roughly 95% of transitive dependency alerts are unreachable from real code paths. No tool today does accurate call-graph reachability at CI speed across polyglot stacks with mixed build systems. Teams respond by disabling alerts or triaging hundreds of findings that never matter, while the small fraction of genuinely exploitable vulnerabilities gets buried. The result is alert fatigue that erodes trust in security tooling, or unfixed vulnerabilities that slip into production unnoticed.
Почему это важно
Reachability-aware SCA is the difference between a usable security signal and an alert machine that developers are trained to ignore.
Как я оцениваю возможность
Оценка возможности отражает моё личное суждение, а не точное измерение: насколько проблема болезненна, как часто она встречается и насколько мало существует решений сегодня. Чем выше оценка, тем более достойной реализации я считаю эту задачу.
Насколько серьёзные проблемы это создаёт.
Как часто люди с этим сталкиваются.
Насколько мало хороших инструментов для этого существует сегодня.
Ещё задачи, достойные решения
Почему программное обеспечение, от которого мы зависим больше всего, так неудобно использовать?
TechПочему я по-прежнему не владею ни одними из данных, которые генерирую?
TechThis is a fundamental limitation of how most data deletion works today, and it comes down to a few core problems: **Deletion is an absence, not a presence** A receipt is a positive artifact -- proof that something *happened*. Proving a negative ("this data no longer exists anywhere") is cryptographically and architecturally much harder than proving a positive ("this file was signed at time T"). **No standard audit trail** Most systems are not built to emit a verifiable, tamper-proof log of what was deleted, when, and from which storage layer. Even if a company tells you "your data was deleted," that statement lives in their system, which they control. **Backups and replication** Data often lives in dozens of places: primary DBs, read replicas, backups, logs, caches, CDN edge nodes, analytics pipelines. A deletion receipt would need to account for all of them -- and companies rarely track this end-to-end. **No legal requirement to provide one** GDPR Article 17 gives you the right to erasure, and Article 19 requires notification to recipients -- but neither mandates a cryptographically verifiable receipt. Companies only have to confirm deletion, not *prove* it in a way you can independently verify. **Technical proof would require architectural changes** A trustworthy receipt would need something like: a Merkle-tree deletion proof, a signed timestamp from an independent witness, and a commitment scheme proving the original data existed before deletion. Almost no consumer product is built this way. The gap here is a policy and incentive problem as much as a technical one -- companies have little motivation to build verifiable deletion infrastructure when regulators don't require it.
TechПочему я не могу знать, соответствует ли то, что запущено, тому, что задекларировано в моём SBOM?
TechПочему каждая цепочка происхождения C2PA разрывается в тот момент, когда контент попадает в социальные сети?
TechWhy do my AI-generated tests pass on the bugs they were meant to catch?