https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/src/commit/b168820a089ff6e835059f0d806f81b612987a79/app/models.py#L3513

A few people in the other thread assumed that it was required to fork the code to disable those filters. That’s not the case, the filters can be configured, and are off by default.

To hide the reputation system, here’s a line of CSS that admins can add in the admin area to hide it for every user

https://piefed.social/c/piefed_css/p/1722358/hide-red-triangle-warnings-on-accounts-with-bad-reputation

That CSS line can also be used by any user wanting to hide the score at the user level.

  • fiat_lux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    I get that many people are concerned about is scoring systems, but it seems a lot more worrying to me that it allows arbitrary code execution.

    • wjs018@piefed.wjs018.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      arbitrary

      You mean the Javascript that would need to be written and added by the instance admin? Something that any admin with infra access could do anyway? Hardly seems arbitrary at all. ACE usually means something not intended.

      • fiat_lux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Well, just copy and pasted rather than written. I would have hoped that infra read-level permission, infra write-level permission and admin interface permissions were all separate to begin with, even if the person who spun up the instance obviously has all three.

        You do need a level of trust in an admin, of course, but wide open text boxes for putting in code are a questionable system design choice, in my opinion. It adds an extra point of possible entry that then relies on the security of the overall admin interface instead of limiting it to what should require highest level infra admin permissions to access. And if it is something that would be limited to someone who has those, then what is the actual utility of having a textarea for it in the first place?

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        I too think the top commenter here hasn’t quite understood what they are seeing in this picture. 😅

      • wjs018@piefed.wjs018.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 days ago

        They’re just making shit up. In their mind I guess Javascript that is intentionally included by an admin to customize their instance counts as ACE. In that sense any webserver you ever browse to is capable of ACE.

        • fiat_lux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Any webserver you browse is possibly capable of ACE depending on the implementation. When it starts to hold user data is when that starts to be a big concern. The more points of entry, the more that needs to be secured.

          I don’t have any experience with piefed admin, or any opinion on piefed itself, just too many years of web admin experience. And as soon as I see intentionally made doors that allow code input, I start to worry about how much experience the devs who made it have with web admin.

      • fiat_lux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        As others have pointed out, it does still require (with some caveats about the infra setup) the user to be an admin. But if someone manages to get in to the interface, or another person is granted admin access who shouldn’t have been, it makes it more risky than it needs to be. It also for me is a design choice that indicates other parts of the system should be carefully examined for how they’re handling and sanitizing input.