161
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025
161 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
71842 readers
4245 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well that's certainly no light read - I'll admit that I've only read the first six sections of the document for now
The crux of it that I could see was the initial repo that was backdoored contained a malicious Windows command in the PreBuildCommand field of .vbproj file
My initial thoughts would be that it might be advisable for build tools to confirm any defined build commands with the user when it detects a command not seen before?
I suppose otherwise the argument could be made that if you're downloading and compiling code that is backdoored, if you're not checking .vbproj or equivalents, you're probably also not auditing any source code either and you're being pwned either way.
A lot of malware-adjacent stuff, like exploit demonstration code, has contained its own malware targeting the user. Probably best to run stuff like that in a container or VM.
Agreed - the end of the article does state compiling untrusted repos is effectively the same as running an untrusted executable, and you should treat it with the same caution (especially if its malware or gaming cheat adjacent)