Ian Littman
Ian Littman
Never mind, got enough info to repro. Moving this back.
So, we have #27061 making this bug a bit harder to troubleshoot, but it seems like there's a reliability issue somewhere for associating OS vulnerabilities to OS versions. https://dogfood.fleetdm.com/software/vulnerabilities/CVE-2025-31241 for...
Issue here was that my fix for #28368 triggered a regression here. In order to avoid test flakiness I avoided bumping `updated_at` in the database when pieces of the vulnerability...
Moved this to eng-init to get a little closer to the new process. Assigning MDM tag so it isn't in no-man's-land.
How about forcing this to be a UTM parameter on our existing transparency page, so we can decide how to route things as they come up? This (untested) patch should...
Fair enough. Is `?utm_source=secureframe` the right hardcoded value here or do we want something else? `?utm=` isn't a standard UTM parameter name, hence my asking (`?utm_content=` is though).
Just made the following revisions to the associated PR: * Env var name * utm_source -> utm_content * `1` -> `true` as the value we're checking for in the env...
As noted above, providing engineering support on this. Skipping the additional issue add as it'd be 0pt.
@jmwatts Re: expected errors, we'll be using the existing config framework foor bool values, so the error we'll see when handing back a non-boolean will be like this: ``` FLEET_LOGGING_DEBUG=furz...
Per E-Group call, this needs to ship in 4.67, so I've pulled it into the sprint onto me.