Early on, I'd get a feature request and immediately open VS Code Cursor. It felt productive. It felt like listening. It felt like momentum. But it wasn't. It was scattered. It was reactionary. And it was slowly turning my product into a…

Sichere Programmierung dev.to 16.04.2025, 20:22 Uhr 3 Min. Lesezeit

↗ Quelle (dev.to)

Reagiere als Erste:r — dein Feedback zählt!

Early on, I'd get a feature request and immediately open ~~VS Code~~ Cursor.

It felt productive. It felt like listening. It felt like momentum.

But it wasn't.

It was scattered. It was reactionary. And it was slowly turning my product into a mess.

The Trap No One Warns You About

Everyone says "talk to your users." But what they don't tell you is how risky it is when you're just starting out.

You get one email saying, "Hey, can you add dark mode?"

Another one asks for a Slack integration.

Someone DMs you: "Have you thought about adding AI summaries?"

When the volume is low, every piece of feedback feels important. You're trying to hit product-market fit, trying to keep users happy, and trying to build something real. So what do you do?

You say yes. To everything.

And then one day, you realize you've built something that doesn't feel like your product anymore.

Feedback Is Not a Roadmap

Here's what I got wrong:

I treated every request like it was urgent.

I assumed users knew exactly what they needed.

I thought building fast meant I was being responsive.

But most feedback — especially early on — is scattered and anecdotal. One person's request might be completely irrelevant to 99% of your users. But if you treat it like gospel, you start building for that one person.

That's how you lose direction.

Structure Beats Chaos

The shift came when I realized: I didn't need more feedback. I needed structured feedback.

Random ideas in DMs, chats, and emails weren't helpful. I couldn't see trends. I couldn't tell what was noise and what was worth building.

So I created a single place where all ideas could live in public. Users could post, upvote, and add context. And suddenly I could see what really mattered — not just who shouted the loudest.

How I Decide What to Build Now

I don't say "no" to everything. I just say "yes" more intentionally.

Here's the filter I use now:

Does it align with where the product is going?

If it doesn't fit the vision, it's out.

Are multiple users asking for it?

One-off requests get logged. Patterns get prioritized.

Does this move the product forward?

Not every "nice to have" is worth the trade-off.

Sometimes I'll reply with:

"Appreciate this! Not something we're planning right now, but noted."

Other times I'll ask:

"Can you tell me more about what you're trying to solve?"

But I no longer jump straight into "sure, I'll build it."

What Changed

Since I started doing this, everything got better.

I ship faster — fewer distractions.

The product feels more cohesive.

I'm less reactive, more focused.

And users? They actually appreciate the boundaries.

The funny part? Some even said:

"Glad you didn't build that. It would've made things more confusing."

Listen, But Don't Lose the Plot

Feedback is essential. But if you treat every request equally, you'll end up with a cluttered product that tries to please everyone and ends up helping no one.

You need a clear plan. And you need a way to listen without losing control.

That's why I built UserJot — for myself, first and foremost. It's just a simple place to collect ideas, see what comes up more than once, and stay focused while still giving users a voice.

It doesn't mean I say no to everything.

It means I say yes to the right things — and only when it makes sense.

IR-PLAYBOOK-VULN-REMEDIATIONMEDIUM

Schritte anzeigen

SOC Incident Playbook: Vulnerability Remediation & Verification

Asset Inventory

Asset-Datenbank nach betroffenen Komponenten, Versionen und exposed Ports abfragen.

nmap -sV --script vuln -p- <target-network>

Exploit MonitoringSofort

SIEM-Regeln und IDS-Signaturen (Snort/Suricata) auf Angriffsversuche schärfen.

tail -f /var/log/suricata/fast.log | grep <cve>

Patch DeploymentSofort

Patch oder offiziellen Workaround gemäß Hersteller-Empfehlung einspielen.

Check Vendor Security Advisory Bulletin

1-Click Detection Engineering: Multi-Dialect SIEM Rules5 Formate

Regeln anzeigen

Syntax validiert (0 Fehler)

title: Detect Exploitation - I Started Saying "No" to Feature Requests — My Product Got Better Overnight
id: cce45404-1731-487d-a728-43f941072afc
status: experimental
description: Automatisch generierte SIEM-Erkennungsregel basierend auf CTI Intelligence
references:
  - https://tsecurity.de/
author: iShareStuff CTI Automated Detection Engine
date: 2026-09-24
logsource:
  category: network_connection
  product: any
detection:
  selection:
      CommandLine|contains:
        - 'exploit'
  condition: selection
falsepositives:
  - Legitime administrative Zugriffe oder Penetrationstests
level: high
tags:
  - attack.initial_access

Syntax validiert (0 Fehler)

rule CTI_Threat_Indicator {
    meta:
        author = "iShareStuff CTI Automated Detection Engine"
        date = "2026-09-24"
        description = "YARA Signature for "
    strings:
        $str = "I Started Saying \"No\" to Featu" ascii wide
    condition:
        any of them
}

Syntax validiert (0 Fehler)

index=security sourcetype IN ("cisco:asa", "pan:traffic", "zeek_conn", "suricata", "WinEventLog:Security")
("I Started Saying No to Feature Requests ")
| stats count earliest(_time) as first_seen latest(_time) as last_seen by src_ip, dest_ip, dest_host, signature
| eval first_seen=strftime(first_seen, "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S"), last_seen=strftime(last_seen, "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S")
| sort - count

Syntax validiert (0 Fehler)

message: "*I Started Saying No to Feature Requests *"

Syntax validiert (0 Fehler)

CommonSecurityLog
| where Message has "I Started Saying No to Feature Requests "
| summarize EventCount = count(), FirstSeen = min(TimeGenerated), LastSeen = max(TimeGenerated) by SourceIP, DestinationIP, DestinationPort, Activity
| extend DetectionRule = "iShareStuff-CTI-Compiled"
| sort by EventCount desc

🎯

MITRE ATT&CK Matrix Navigator 14 Taktiken

Reconnaissance

Resource Development

Initial Access

Execution

Persistence

Privilege Escalation

Defense Evasion

Credential Access

Discovery

Lateral Movement

Collection

Command and Control

Exfiltration

Impact

💡 Tipp: Klicken Sie auf eine TTP, um Gegenmaßnahmen und SIEM-Erkennungsregeln anzuzeigen.Enterprise Matrix v14.1

🚀 Auf tsecurity.de entdecken

◀ VORHERIGER BEITRAG 3 Min

Understanding the Linux File System Hierarchy

Sichere Programmierung

NÄCHSTER BEITRAG 1 Min

What’s best way to verify Kerberos?

Linux Tipps & HardeningWeiterlesen ▶

Blättern: Pfeiltasten [ ← ] [ → ] · Tasten j / k · mobil: Wischen

Fokus-Vektor:

Kognitive Analyse für identifizierte Bedrohung: Erhöhte Bedrohungslage im Bereich I Started Saying "No" to Feature Request.... Basierend auf 368k Vektor-Korrelationen werden sofortige Isolationsmaßnahmen für betroffene Endpunkte empfohlen.

🛡️ Angriffsfläche & Exposure

Netzwerk/Remote-Zugriff ohne Vorauthentifizierung möglich.

⚡ Empfohlene Sofortmaßnahmen

1. Perimeter-Inspektion: Relevante Portfreigaben und exponierte Endpunkte unverzüglich scannen.
2. Patch-Applikation: Hersteller-Hotfix einspielen oder betroffene Daemons in isolierte DMZ-Segmente überführen.
3. Telemetrie & EDR-Alerts: Prozessaufrufe und Child-Processes auf anomale Shell-Spawns überwachen.

🔗 Semantisch verwandte Zero-Days MariaDB 11.7 VEC

Schnell-Prompts für Analysten

⚠️ DEFANGED SANDBOX VIEW (tsecurity.de): Alle Netzwerkindikatoren und URLs wurden neutralisiert (2 Indikatoren entschärft). Nur zur defensiven Analyse!

Format: python

#!/usr/bin/env python3
# Exploit Title: PoC for Target
import socket, sys
target = '192[.]168[.]1[.]10'
url = 'hxxp://target[.]local/vuln'
s = socket.socket()
s.connect((target, 80))
s.send(b'GET / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: target.local\r\n\r\n')