rcm VS git-secrets

Are your per-machine branches mostly distinct, or do they share a lot?

I use https://github.com/thoughtbot/rcm and I find my dotfiles share _quite a bit_ in some respects (e.g. neovim config) but are drastically different in others (SSH config as one example) -- keeping things synced _across_ branches sounds very difficult. rcm handles this well, without branches, IMO.

I use https://github.com/thoughtbot/rcm, which works smoothly and includes support for host-specific files

I use thoughtbot/rcm to handle my github dotfiles. Super short version after installing, mkdir ~/.dotfiles Then go through your home directory (ie. ~/ ) and mkrc .bashrc and then do the same for any other files you plan on tweaking or have custom settings for. Most of these with be in ~/.config/ but some will be in ~/ . (ie. mkrc ~/.bashrc for your bash settings and aliases)

Prior to catching the Nix brainworms and switching to home-manager, I mostly used thoughtbot/rcm.

Personally I like (and use) rcm. Everything is still in a git repository, but has more features that work well for sharing across multiple machines.

Check out https://github.com/thoughtbot/rcm

I use rcm. It assumes you keep a separate (potentially version-controlled) folder at ~/.dotfiles or similar, and it provides a suite of tools for managing the symlinks.

https://github.com/thoughtbot/rcm

currently I am managing my dotfiles with rcm (ran by ansible). This approach served me well over the years but recently I stumpled over chezmoi.

Setup a Github/Gitlab account and find a dotfile manager you like (I'm using RCM - it can do more than I actually use it for).

Well, this doesn't really happen at places that don't suck. They had no least privilege access to critical secrets and no processes (like pre-commit hooks using git-secrets) to prevent them being committed.

# macOS brew install git-secrets # Linux git clone https://github.com/awslabs/git-secrets.git cd git-secrets make install

You could use Git hooks to prevent someone from being able to author a commit when you suspect there is a secret being committed. In addition to this, you could also perform this check server-side, in case someone did not run their Git hooks for whatever reason. For example, check out git-secrets.

git-secrets

Install git-secrets. Go into each of your repos, scan for past mistakes, and add a git-commit hook:

I agree that code scanning is really important, the best way to convince others is to identify high-risk threats in source code and present them to the decision-makers. For example, scanning Secrets is great for showing how repositories can be a massive vulnerability and identifying some low-hanging fruit, especially in the git history. Attackers are really after git repository access for this reason and there are plenty of open-source or free tools that you can use to illustrate the problem. Git-Secrets, Truffle Hog. These aren't great for a long-term commercial solution, something like GitGuardian is a better commercial tool but if the goal is just to illustrate the problem then finding some high-value secrets with free tools is a good way to convince the security personnel to invest in some solutions. Then the door is open to having more conversations as you have already proven the risk.

I worked for a big startup last year and was on a contract deadline for integrating a vendor framework into a React Native app.

It was taking too long to get a new temp demo license key and GitHub search with clever filters helped me track down a demo key that was recently uploaded to a test repo.

This is also why I use git-secrets in my repos.

https://github.com/awslabs/git-secrets

Under the covers, it is simply looking up an 'ignore' list stored in YML during each scan. If you are building your own, you might also want to see how AWS Labs is doing it in their solution git secrets.