this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
458 points (98.3% liked)

Open Source

31262 readers
196 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Thought this was a good read exploring some how the "how and why" including several apparent sock puppet accounts that convinced the original dev (Lasse Collin) to hand over the baton.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Interesting to hear and it wouldn't surprise me either tbh. At least none of my systems were vulnerable apparently, which is good because I am running the latest Ubuntu LTS and latest Proxmox - if those were affected then wow this would have affected so many more people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

At least none of my systems were vulnerable apparently

none that you know of

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I ran the detection script, that's why I claim that apparently my systems were not vulnerable.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Do you think Jia Tan is alive now to talk about his famous bug?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Jia Tan is most definitely not a person, just the publicly facing account of a group of people.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

What if the unexpected SSH latency hadn’t been introduced, this backdoor would live?

I wonder how many OSS projects include backdoors that doesn't appear in performance checks

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

What if the unexpected SSH latency won’t be introduced, this backdoor would live?

I'm confused by this sentence. It uses future tense in the first clause and then conditional in the second. Are you trying to express something that could've taken place in the past? Then you should be using "had been". See conditional sentences.

What if the unexpected SSH latency hadn’t been introduced, this backdoor would live?

Or are you trying to express something else?

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Thanks, what you wrote is what I meant:

What if the unexpected SSH latency hadn’t been introduced, this backdoor would live?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

~~Linux~~ Unix since 1979: upon booting, the kernel shall run a single "init" process with unlimited permissions. Said process should be as small and simple as humanly possible and its only duty will be to spawn other, more restricted processes.

Linux since 2010: let's write an enormous, complex system(d) that does everything from launching processes to maintaining user login sessions to DNS caching to device mounting to running daemons and monitoring daemons. All we need to do is write flawless code with no security issues.

Linux since 2015: We should patch unrelated packages so they send notifications to our humongous system manager whether they're still running properly. It's totally fine to make a bridge from a process that accepts data from outside before even logging in and our absolutely secure system manager.

Excuse the cheap systemd trolling, yes, it is actually splitting into several, less-privileged processes, but I do consider the entire design unsound. Not least because it creates a single, large provider of connection points that becomes ever more difficult to replace or create alternatives to (similarly to web standard if only a single browser implementation existed).

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

And so the microkernal vs monolithic kernal debate continues...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

its only duty will be to spawn other, more restricted processes.

Perhaps I'm misremembering things, but I'm pretty sure the SysVinit didn't run any "more restricted processes". It ran a bunch of bash scripts as root. Said bash scripts were often absolutely terrible.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You mean Unix for the first one

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I remember Linux in 1979...

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

Linus was a child prodigy.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

Lol that Jia Tan there cracked me up

[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago

Historically there have been several instances of anarcho-communist organizations and social movements flourishing.

Most of them were sabotaged by plutocrat agents invoking violence or mischief. Often just giving an angry militants in the region some materiel support and bad intel.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I'm curious to know about the distro maintainers that were running bleeding edge with this exploit present. How do we know the bad actors didn't compromise their systems in the interim ?

The potential of this would have been catastrophic had it made its way into the stable versions, they could have for example accessed the build server for tor or tails or signal and targeted the build processes . not to mention banks and governments and who knows what else... Scary.

I'm hoping things change and we start looking at improving processes in the whole chain. I'd be interested to see discussions in this area.

I think the fact they targeted this package means that other similar packages will be attacked. A good first step would be identifying those packages used by many projects and with one or very few devs even more so if it has root access. More Devs means chances of scrutiny so they would likely go for packages with one or few devs to improve the odds of success.

I also think there needs to be an audit of every package shipped in the distros. A huge undertaking , perhaps it can be crowdsourced and the big companies FAAGMN etc should heavily step up here and set up a fund for audits .

What do you think could be done to mitigate or prevent this in future ?

[–] [email protected] 86 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Hopefully shows why you should never trust closed source software

If the world didn’t have source access then we would have never found it

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

open source software getting backdoored by nefarious committers is not an indictment on closed source software in any way. this was discovered by a microsoft employee due to its effect on cpu usage and its introduction of faults in valgrind, neither of which required the source to discover.

the only thing this proves is that you should never fully trust any external dependencies.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago

The difference here is that if a state actor wants a backdoor in closed source software they just ask/pay for it, while they have to con their way in for half a decade to touch open source software.

How many state assets might be working for Microsoft right now, and we don't get to vet their code?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 7 months ago

And if they do find it, it'll all be kept hush hush, they'll force an update on everyone with no explanation, some people will do everything in their power to refuse because they need to keep their legacy software running, and the exploit stays alive in the wild.

load more comments
view more: next ›