►
From YouTube: Defend: Threat Insights Weekly Group Discussion
Description
2020-05-26
A
A
B
A
A
C
D
A
C
A
C
A
E
A
Do
was
maybe
a
not
very
well
communicated
decision
from
Lindsey
and
I.
The
page.
The
page
actually
says
the
the
combined
weight
should
be
the
closest
Fibonacci
sequence,
but
I
think
that's
way
too
technical
I'm
just
I've
just
been
adding
them.
So
you
would
have
been
eight.
The
next
number,
but
you
know
potato
potato.
A
E
A
A
B
The
refinement
on
this
thing
I
know
from
the
the
retrospective
earlier.
We
talked
about
putting
something
like
the
technical
details
into
the
issue
from
one
of
the
Mets
comments,
and
do
we
want
to
have
that
as
a
requirement
like
that?
There
is
some
kind
of
at
least
technical
direction
put
into
these
issues
before
we
say
it's
ready
for
do.
I.
A
B
E
Just
gonna
say
you
wouldn't
mind
I,
think
having
a
like
a
technical
details,
just
make
another
label
for
it
down
at
the
bottom.
Jonathan
to
your
point,
anything
that
is
going
to
be
sort
of
part
of
the
final
ticket
should
be
in
the
description.
I
know
this
is
the
thing
that
I've
struggled
with
there's
lots
of
interesting
discussions
and
decisions
get
made
down
in
the
comments.
Don't
get
carried
back
up
to
the
top
into
that
description
and
then
they
get
lost
so
but
absolutely
the
place
to
put
yeah.
B
A
C
A
A
C
Can
do
this
so
basically,
this
task
is
for
much
like
an
MRI
or
an
issue
where
there's
a
section
that
says
related
issues,
there's
now
a
section
like
that
and
vulnerabilities
in
the
phantom
page,
and
so
there's
really
a
tissues
and
there's
an
ad
a
human
created
issue
button.
That's
now
separate
well
this
those
buttons
and
then
I
asked
a
couple
of
questions
below
regarding
when
the
creation
creates
you
button
appears
and
whether
it's
that
separate
from
like
resolved
with
merge,
request
button.
C
A
C
So
I
does
anyone
want
to
go.
I
can
also
talk
to
this
one.
Yes,
please
we're
good
okay,
so
this
one,
if
you
want
to
scroll
I,
just
know
it
realized.
I
was
looking
at
my
page
when
you
have
you're
the
one
sharing
scroll
down
a
little
bit
to
the
first
screenshot.
Yes,
so
this
one
is
basically
is
updating
this
security
dashboard
view
on
the
right
side,
there's
going
to
be
a
scanner
column
which
lists
the
type
of
scanner
and
where
it's
from
and
then
there's
also
in
the
description.
C
C
A
A
C
B
I
thought
we
had
the
scanner
filter,
but
it's
not
specific
to
you
know,
get
levers,
white
source
or
third-party
scanners,
and
so
there's
probably
something
on
the
filter
side.
That
needs
to
be
updated.
But
that
seems
like
I,
don't
know
if
that's
a
separate
issue-
or
it's
definitely
two
different
em
ours
is
my
thought-
is
getting
that
extra
column
and
updating
the
filter.
Oh.
A
A
B
A
A
E
E
E
No,
no
just
just
noting
that,
yes,
they
are
really
part
of
the
same
issue
right
now,
step
1.1
and
1.2
probably
would
be
better
to
actually
just
clone.
This
issue
into
you
know
copy
over
just
the
pieces
needed
for
and
make
an
update
filters
as
an
actual
separate
step,
1.2
issue,
and
then
I
can
update
this
and
the
other
one
or
two.
A
E
E
Well,
what's
currently
named
the
reports
filter
which
is
going
to
be
renamed,
the
scanner
filter
that
drop
down
to
not
just
break
it
out
by
sass
dependency
and
the
defender
name,
they
actually
want
to
get
more
granular
with
the
specific
scanner
of
type
forget
labs.
So,
for
instance,
you
might
actually
see
are
different,
like
SAS
scanners
listed
out
or
the
different
types
of
container
dependency
scanners,
just
something
to
keep
in
mind.
I'll.
Try
to
locate
that
issue
to
make
sure
that
there's
not
a
collision
with
another
team.
E
A
B
C
A
A
B
Can
I
can
go
through
this
real,
quick
awesome?
We,
so
there
was
a
misunderstood
exactly
what
was
being
asked
for
in
the
original
in
the
issue,
so
it
was
well
first,
it
was
not
doing
anything,
it
wasn't
taking
the
branch
it
was
just
going
to
like
that
at
fault
branch
I
believe
that
first
and
so
this,
what
I
ended
up
changing
it
to
was
pulling
from
whatever
branch
the
pipeline
ran
against
no.
B
B
B
B
D
D
B
A
So
then,
when
the
window
scanner
runs
again,
you
don't
you
still
pick
up
the
verbalizes,
but
with
a
different
hash
and
possibly
a
different
line.
Then
they'll.
Do
you
map
that
to
the
previous
scan
on
the
same
branch?
Maybe
maybe
you
throw
away
anyway,
you're
gonna
have
to
think
about
it.
I,
don't
think
it's
right
exactly.
B
A
B
B
A
E
E
E
E
B
E
Need
to
take
a
look,
you
know
I'll,
be
honest
when
we
get
into
the
nuances
of
all
of
the
branches
and
the
commit
IDs
and
all
the
things
all
our
abilities.
I
really
don't
have
a
great
answer
for
it.
I
liked
a
comment
that
Lukas
Charles
had
made,
and
a
very
similar
related
issue
to
fingerprinting
that
he
doesn't
see
this
happening
in
a
lot
of
our
competitors
products
because
we
have
such
a
complex,
branching,
just
workflow
in
general.
So
this
may
be
sort
of
an
us
challenge
to
solve
yeah.
E
In
you
know
a
separate
branch,
maybe
that
was
both
pulled
from
the
same
master
at
the
same
time
and
one
was-
was
a
lot
blade
or
somebody
may
have
screwed
something
up
and
reintroduced
something
themselves,
just
trying
to
give
a
sense
of
hey.
We
think
we've
seen
this
before,
so
maybe
you
don't
need
to
look
at
it,
I
guess
from
the
fingerprinting
perspective.
Maybe
this
is
way
beyond
the
scope
of
this.