标签：#ev

By: Pierre Le Clezio, Lead Product Manager – GitGuardian; Nic Gumina, Senior Security Consultant – AWS; Manu Chandrasekhar, Senior DevOps Consultant – AWS; Dan Parlin, Security Consultant – AWS This article was originally published at AWS blogs . The rise of AI coding assistants and Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers has accelerated the secret management challenge as developers increasingly share configuration files and context with AI tools that inadvertently expose sensitive credentials. API keys, access tokens, and credentials end up in Git repositories and CI/CD logs. Organizations lack answers to critical questions. They don't know which vaulted secrets have been exposed in code, whether developers have shared credentials through AI tool configurations, how many duplicate credentials exist across accounts, or how many orphaned secrets remain that no application uses. The visibility gap leads to: Credential exposure : Hardcoded secrets in version control systems create attack vectors that persist even after rotation Secret sprawl : Duplicate credentials across accounts expand your attack surface Compliance gaps : Inability to track secret lifecycles undermines audit requirements Remediation delays : Without correlation between secret inventory and code exposure, security teams lack the context to prioritize and act quickly With multi-account AWS architectures, the need for unified visibility becomes critical. Organizations need more than just a vault. They need visibility across the entire secret lifecycle, from developer workstations to production environments. GitGuardian and AWS Secrets Manager GitGuardian is an AWS Partner specializing in non-human identity (NHI) security, which focuses on protecting machine credentials such as API keys, service accounts, tokens, and secrets management. GitGuardian can be integrated with code repositories, container registries, package registries, documentation platforms, and messaging channels. GitGuardian's integration w

The Problem In one of our Azure DevOps pipelines, nuget restore suddenly started failing with an error stating, in essence, that the requested package could not be found in the referenced version. The task referencing the package hadn't changed — yet the restore stage kept failing. At first glance, this looks like an issue with the package source, some caching effect, or a broken .nuspec/lockfile. It wasn't. The Root Cause The actual culprit was the version of the NuGetToolInstaller@1 task itself. The pipeline had NuGet pinned to version 6.12.2. The Fix Bump the versionSpec in the NuGetToolInstaller@1 task from 6.12.2 to 7.9.0: - task : NuGetToolInstaller@1 displayName : ' Use NuGet 7.9.0' inputs : versionSpec : 7.9.0 checkLatest : false That's it. After the update, nuget restore ran through cleanly again.

I’ve tried most of the ready-to-eat meal delivery services in the country. CookUnity is the one that feels like real cooking, from real chefs.

Shadcn, a design engineer at Vercel, has introduced new components for chat interfaces within the shadcn/ui project. This release includes components like MessageScroller and Message, focusing on conversation functionality. The approach emphasizes modular design, allowing developers to adapt elements without affecting underlying logic or styles. Support for headless components is also provided. By Daniel Curtis

In this podcast, Michael Stiefel spoke to Tracy Bannon about the role of artificial intelligence in software and the attendant risks in the areas of security, software development, and society at large. While it might be reasonable to assume a certain amount of trust within a software ecosystem, the risks escalate when the boundary between two software ecosystems is crossed. By Tracy Bannon

Deterministic rules safeguard hard metrics, but what about architectural intent? Discover how agentic fitness functions combine AI agents and versioned rubrics to evaluate complex, judgment-heavy concerns—such as boundary fidelity, semantic contract drift, and stale ADR assumptions. Elevate evolutionary architecture governance with continuous, calibrated feedback loops. By Hemant Kumar Mahato, Łukasz Sieczkowski, Vijayasenthilkumar Kuppusamy

The greatest invention in pet tech in recent years is the litter robot. A machine that scoops your kitties' poop so you don't have to - what else could a cat owner possibly want? How about insights into your kitty's litter box usage that could flag health issues? Sign me up. But I have two […]

This kid-friendly version of Skylight’s digital calendar actually gets my son to complete his nighttime routine in a timely fashion.

This is a submission for DEV's Summer Bug Smash: Clear the Lineup powered by Sentry. ...

Grafana Labs has announced general availability for two tools that let AI coding agents query live observability data during development: the gcx CLI and the Grafana MCP server. Both allow agents to pull metrics, logs, traces, SLOs, and Synthetic Monitoring results from Grafana Cloud or a self-hosted stack By Claudio Masolo

The warning landed on the only people who had done it properly I maintain a linter that reads agent config files — SKILL.md , AGENTS.md , CLAUDE.md — and fails CI when they bake in something that only works on the author's machine. One of its rules says: if you call an external CLI, declare it, or the next person won't have it. Declaring it means naming it in frontmatter: requires : codex Except that anyone with more than one dependency writes the list form, because that's what YAML is for: requires : - codex - gemini My implementation only read the first shape. So the block list — the normal way, the way you write it the moment you have two of anything — was invisible to the linter, and it warned you for an undeclared CLI that you had, in fact, declared. Read that back slowly. Authors who ignored the dependency question entirely were never flagged, because they never wrote a requires: key at all. Authors who sat down and wrote the contract properly got a warning telling them they hadn't. The rule was inverted with respect to the thing it was trying to encourage. I shipped that. It went out in a patch release, and I only found it because a commenter used the phrase "dependency contract" and I went to re-read my own implementation of it. Then it happened again. Twice, in one release Two comments on a post of mine turned into new rules. One of them, unverified-write , reports a file that changes external state — git push , npm publish , an INSERT — and never reads that state back anywhere. Before publishing, I ran it over 586 real skill files pulled from a public registry, found two false-positive shapes in the data, fixed both, and re-measured. Fire rate 0.7%, and every hit I could check by hand was genuine. I felt good about it. Then I handed the diff to a different model for a pre-publish read, and it produced this input in about a minute: Never run `git push --force` from this skill. That is a git push in a code span, in a file with no read-back anywhere. My rule

The Quest Begins (The “Why”) Honestly, I used to stare at my CI/CD yaml files like they were ancient runes. Every push felt like a gamble: “Will the build pass this time?” I’d spend Friday nights hunting down a missing node_modules cache in Jenkins, only to realize the agent had run out of disk space because I’d forgotten to add a cleanup step. The pain was real, and the feedback loop was slower than a dial‑up modem. I kept asking myself: Why does this feel like wrestling a dragon every time I want to ship a feature? The answer was simple—I hadn’t yet found a pipeline that just worked out of the box. I wanted something that gave me confidence, not anxiety. So I embarked on a quest to compare the three big contenders: GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, and good ol’ Jenkins. Spoiler: the treasure wasn’t in the tool itself, but in how you shape the pipeline around your team’s flow. The Revelation (The Insight) The big “aha!” moment came when I stopped treating CI/CD as a one‑size‑fits‑all script and started seeing it as a contract between my code and my environment. The contract says: Every commit gets a clean slate. Dependencies are restored, not guessed. Tests run in parallel, not sequentially. Artifacts are published only if the gate passes. When I wrote that contract down, the yaml stopped looking like magic incantations and started looking like a checklist. The tools differ in syntax, but the underlying principles are the same. Here’s the secret: cache wisely, fail fast, and keep the pipeline short enough to give you feedback before you’ve even finished your coffee. Wielding the Power (Code & Examples) Below are three pipelines—one for each platform—that embody the contract above. I’ll first show a “struggle” version (the common pitfalls) and then the victorious version. 1. GitHub Actions – The Struggle name : CI on : [ push , pull_request ] jobs : build : runs-on : ubuntu-latest steps : - uses : actions/checkout@v3 - name : Install deps run : npm install # <-- no cache,

One of the easiest security mistakes is assuming that a WordPress plugin is still trustworthy simply because it has been installed for a long time. The folder is familiar. The plugin name is familiar. WordPress still loads. But is the code on disk still the code you approved? That question became very real for me when MatrixSwarm reported an unexpected change inside a plugin directory on a production server. The alert did not claim that it had discovered malware. It said something more precise and defensible: This plugin no longer matches its trusted baseline. That integrity warning led to a manual investigation. Inside a forgotten WordPress test plugin, I found a PHP backdoor. The important part of this story is not that an automated agent magically understood the attacker’s intent. It did not. The important part is that it noticed a change that was easy for a person—and WordPress itself—to overlook. That incident shaped the design of MatrixSwarm’s WordPress Plugin Guard. The problem: familiarity is not integrity WordPress sites often accumulate history: plugins that are no longer actively maintained; test plugins that were never removed; emergency fixes applied directly on the server; auto-updates that legitimately replace files; abandoned folders that nobody remembers installing; writable PHP files inside a public web root. A traditional malware scanner looks for known suspicious patterns. That is valuable, but it answers a different question. Plugin Guard asks: Has anything inside this approved plugin changed since the operator trusted it? It does not need to recognize a specific web shell. It does not need a signature for a particular backdoor family. It detects the loss of integrity first, then gives the operator evidence and control. How the baseline works When an operator approves a plugin, Plugin Guard walks the plugin directory and computes a SHA-256 digest for every file. It stores those relative paths and hashes as the plugin’s trusted manifest. A simpli

Last month I moved my blog off a platform and onto a rented server, and instead of installing WordPress I finished something I had been building for it: Quire Ink , a blog engine that is one process and two SQLite files. No database server, no build pipeline, no cloud account anywhere in the path. bun src/index.ts That line is the whole deployment. Point nginx at the port and you have a blog. The part readers notice Opening a post costs about 114 KB , first visit, nothing cached. Of that, 67 KB is fonts I host myself and the JavaScript is 3.6 to 7.8 KB , written by hand. Third-party requests: zero . No CDN, no font host, no tracker. The numbers hold because the build enforces them. Every bundle has a size cap and the build fails if a feature crosses it, so nothing can quietly start costing every reader a little more forever. And the reading page is where most of the work went: Six palettes in light and dark, and four reading typefaces , all switchable by the reader, not just the owner. Fonts ship with Vietnamese and Central European accents included. Book mode : a fullscreen two-column reader on paper, with a drop cap and a page count. Not a filter over the page, a second typography. A five-ink highlighter . Write ==text== and it renders as an SVG stroke with chisel ends that breaks per line, pigments measured off a photograph of a real pen box. Readers can also keep their own highlights. 1.4 KB, and zero if unused. Math is MathML , drawn by the browser's own layout engine. No script, no stylesheet, no font file, so a post with a formula costs the reader nothing over one without. Code is highlighted on the server , 21 languages, so no highlighter ships to the browser. A fence that names no language gets a timid guess, so program output stays plain. Search answers as you type , a contents rail follows the post, and related posts, reading time and a progress bar are all there. The progress bar and the fade-in are pure CSS. The part I use every day The admin just went

I'm building EverQuill, an AI-powered tabletop RPG platform — a game where an AI acts as your dungeon master, narrating the story and reacting to what you do. Every turn of that story is a message to a language model, and every message costs money. That cost isn't a problem you get to solve later, once you're big. It's a set of choices you make before anyone shows up, because the defaults you pick decide whether a bad day costs you a few cents or a few hundred dollars. Here are three decisions I made before I opened the alpha, and why. 1. When the tier is unclear, I reach for the stronger model This is tier-based routing : which model serves a request depends on who's asking. Better models write better stories and cost more; cheaper ones are faster and rougher. So free players get Claude Haiku (cheaper, ~$0.80 per million input tokens) and paying players get Claude Sonnet (stronger, ~$3.00 per million) — plus, because the platform is designed to route across providers, the same decision could hand a turn to a local model running through Ollama instead of a hosted one. That part is straightforward. The interesting case is the ambiguous one. My routing hands over the cheaper model only when a request is clearly free-tier; everything else — paid, alpha testers, admin, anything the system can't cleanly place as free — gets the stronger model. The instinct most people have is the reverse: default to cheap, protect the margin, don't spend money you don't have to. The reasoning: a rough, disappointing experience for someone who should have gotten a good one is a real cost — it just doesn't show up on the bill. It shows up as someone deciding the product isn't worth paying for. Meanwhile the money risk is capped elsewhere (more on that below), so biasing toward quality can't run away from me. Given a bounded downside on money and an unbounded downside on reputation, I'd rather err toward quality than toward cheap. 2. I stopped paying full price for the part that never chang

Hard-coding credentials, API keys, or access tokens in automated test suites is one of the most common security risks in software engineering. Ensuring that sensitive variables remain isolated across local developer environments and CI/CD pipelines is critical for keeping your code repositories secure. Here is a practical guide and best-practices workflow for managing secrets cleanly in test automation frameworks. Core Recommendations for Secure Test Suites Zero Source Control Leakage: Always add .env and .env.local files to your .gitignore. Never commit raw tokens or passcodes to git. Use Managed CI Secret Stores : In build pipelines, leverage platform native secret managers such as GitHub Secrets, Harness Secrets, Azure Key Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, or HashiCorp Vault. Dynamic Injection via Environment Variables: Read sensitive data dynamically inside tests using standard environment variables (e.g., process.env.API_KEY or process.env.API_BASE_URL). Enforce Least Privilege: Scope test credentials strictly to non-production environments and configure them to expire periodically. Implementation Examples Local Development Usage: Create a non-committed local environment file (.env.local): API_BASE_URL = https://staging.example.com/api API_TOKEN = your_secret_token_here Execute your test suite while passing or overriding variables inline: # Setting environment variables directly before execution $env :API_BASE_URL = 'https://staging.example.com/api' npm run test :api CI Pipeline Integration (e.g., GitHub Actions): Store API_TOKEN under your repository's Settings > Secrets and variables > Actions, then pass it into your execution job step: - name : Run API Tests run : npm run test:api env : API_TOKEN : ${{ secrets.API_TOKEN }} API_BASE_URL : ${{ secrets.API_BASE_URL }}

A browser preview can look correct while the downloaded image is wrong. The usual failure is timing: CSS eventually applies the custom font to the preview, but Canvas draws once. If the font is not ready at that exact moment, fillText() can silently use a fallback face. The user sees one design and downloads another. I ran into this while building GraffForge, a browser-based graffiti text tool. The free editor compares the same user-entered word across multiple bundled styles, then exports the selected result as a transparent 2048 × 2048 PNG. That gave the export path a clear contract: preserve the exact text; use the selected font; keep spacing, outline, shadow, and skew; fit inside a safe area; preserve real transparency; never upload the user's text or image. Here is the approach that made the output deterministic. 1. Treat export as a separate rendering target Do not enlarge the preview DOM and take a screenshot. Create a fresh Canvas with explicit bitmap dimensions: const EXPORT_SIZE = 2048 ; const canvas = document . createElement ( ' canvas ' ); canvas . width = EXPORT_SIZE ; canvas . height = EXPORT_SIZE ; const context = canvas . getContext ( ' 2d ' ); if ( ! context ) { throw new Error ( ' Canvas rendering is unavailable. ' ); } The width and height attributes define the actual PNG pixel dimensions. CSS sizing and devicePixelRatio are useful for an on-screen preview, but neither should determine the export contract. A fixed bitmap size also makes automated verification straightforward. 2. Load the font before measuring anything Canvas does not redraw automatically when a font finishes loading. Load the exact family, weight, size, and text before calling measureText() : await document . fonts . load ( `400 160px " ${ fontFamily } "` , text ); Passing the actual text is useful because the browser can confirm that the required glyphs are available. After this point, set the Canvas font explicitly: context . font = `400 ${ fontSize } px " ${ fontFamily } "` ;

Having a clear runbook speeds up onboarding for new team members and provides a standardized execution reference for CI/CD environments. Here is a quick-start automation runbook covering prerequisites, environment variables, execution commands, and output artifacts for a Playwright test suite. Prerequisites Node.js: 24.x (configured via package.json engines) Package Manager: npm Optional: Docker (for containerized pipeline runs) Quick Setup # 1. Install project dependencies cd <repo-root> npm ci # 2. Install Playwright browsers and dependencies npx playwright install --with-deps Execution Commands Full Test Suite: npm test (executes run-all-tests.js) API Suite Only: npm run test:api (executes run-api-tests.js) UI Suite Only: npm run test:ui (executes run-ui-tests.js) Generate Reports: npm run generate:reports Core Environment Variables Configure these keys inside your local .env file or CI secrets: API_BASE_URL — Base endpoint URL for API testing BASE_URL — Target website base URL for UI testing RETRY_COUNT — Maximum retry limit for flaky scenario reruns CUCUMBER_PARALLEL — Number of parallel workers for Cucumber execution Test Artifacts & Outputs Allure Execution Results: reports/allure-results Cucumber JSON Reports: reports/cucumber_report.json Failure Media (Videos/Screenshots): test-results/ (configured via config.js)

1. Retomando: da aplicação funcionando ao container pronto para produção Esta série cobriu, até aqui, o suficiente para desenvolver com Docker no dia a dia: conceitos fundamentais, comandos essenciais, Dockerfiles eficientes, rede, volumes e Compose para orquestrar múltiplos serviços. Este último artigo fecha a lacuna entre "funciona no meu Compose local" e "pronto para rodar em produção": imagens menores via multi-stage builds, segurança básica e não negociável, e como tudo isso se integra a um pipeline de CI/CD. 2. O problema que multi-stage builds resolve Compilar ou empacotar uma aplicação frequentemente exige ferramentas que a aplicação não precisa em tempo de execução : compiladores, headers de desenvolvimento, o próprio código-fonte antes de ser transpilado/buildado. Um Dockerfile ingênuo carrega tudo isso para a imagem final: # Ruim: ferramentas de build viajam junto para produção FROM node:20 WORKDIR /app COPY . . RUN npm install && npm run build CMD ["node", "dist/server.js"] Essa imagem inclui o npm , todo o node_modules (incluindo dependências de desenvolvimento), o código-fonte original e as ferramentas de build — frequentemente centenas de MBs de peso morto que nunca são usados depois que npm run build termina, e que ainda aumentam a superfície de ataque da imagem (mais binários, mais coisa que pode ter vulnerabilidade). Multi-stage builds resolvem isso permitindo múltiplos blocos FROM no mesmo Dockerfile, onde estágios posteriores copiam seletivamente apenas o que precisam dos anteriores — o restante do estágio de build simplesmente não existe na imagem final: # Estágio 1: build, com todas as ferramentas necessárias FROM node:20 AS build WORKDIR /app COPY package*.json . RUN npm ci COPY . . RUN npm run build # Estágio 2: produção, só com o resultado do build FROM node:20-slim WORKDIR /app COPY --from=build /app/dist ./dist COPY --from=build /app/node_modules ./node_modules COPY package*.json . CMD ["node", "dist/server.js"] A imagem final não contém o

Jendrik Jördening shares practical engineering strategies for integrating LLMs into production pipelines. He discusses overcoming non-determinism, restricting schemas, separating semantic text extraction from deterministic code, and validating choices using discriminator models. Learn how to structure LLMs with an MVC approach to ensure database integrity, observability, and system reliability. By Jendrik Jördening