▲ 520 ▼ backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to ssh server compromise (www.openwall.com) submitted 2 years ago by Atemu@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml 96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 60 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's looking more like a long game to compromise an upstream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cjk@feddit.de 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) Either that or the attacker was very good at choosing their puppet… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 36 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well the account is focused on one particular project which makes sense if you expect to get burned at some point and don't want all your other exploits to be detected. It looks like there was a second sock puppet account involved in the original attack vector support code. We should certainly audit other projects for similar changes from other psudoanonymous accounts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cjk@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, and the 700 commits should be reverted… just in case we missed something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago That is a should be standard procedure permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cjk@feddit.de 18 points 2 years ago (1 child) Either that or the attacker was very good at choosing their puppet… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 36 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well the account is focused on one particular project which makes sense if you expect to get burned at some point and don't want all your other exploits to be detected. It looks like there was a second sock puppet account involved in the original attack vector support code. We should certainly audit other projects for similar changes from other psudoanonymous accounts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cjk@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, and the 700 commits should be reverted… just in case we missed something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago That is a should be standard procedure permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 36 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well the account is focused on one particular project which makes sense if you expect to get burned at some point and don't want all your other exploits to be detected. It looks like there was a second sock puppet account involved in the original attack vector support code. We should certainly audit other projects for similar changes from other psudoanonymous accounts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cjk@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, and the 700 commits should be reverted… just in case we missed something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago That is a should be standard procedure permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cjk@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, and the 700 commits should be reverted… just in case we missed something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago That is a should be standard procedure permalink fedilink source parent
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago That is a should be standard procedure permalink fedilink source parent