Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally yes, but ripping all conditions out of SECURITY.md should at least raise an eyebrow?
Nobody was watching. Plain and simple. If you have commit access to it, and nobody is there to see, nothing stops you.
Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux landlock?
111–120 of 322 posts
Re: Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux landlock?
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just got a little more respect for pythonic whitespace-sensitivity EDIT: come to think of it, even that might not have done much here, where well-formedness is the issue :(
Yeah, if anything, python worsens the situation. I had a friend DOS our server because he accidentally inserted a tab, causing the illusion that one statement was inside a block but was actually outside it. He swore off python at that point. I personally avoid the language, but I understand due to issues like that these days mixing tabs and spaces is an error (or is it just a warning?) by default. Regardless, still p…
Re: Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux landlock?
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has plausible deniability on it. There's better ways to hide by swapping in Unicode lookalike characters. Some of them even pixel match depending on the font. Maybe I'm out of the loop but is intentionality settled here?
Unicode lookalikes would be detected by IDEs and other tools. There would be plausible deniability in a different situation, but this is the same author who implemented the backdoor and several similar changes that disable security features. I don't think the benefit of doubt is deserved here.
Re: Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux landlock?
#114Answer: https://git.tukaani.org/?p=xz.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9cf4c05edd... Description of Linux's Landlock access control system if you are not familiar with it: https://docs.kernel.org/userspace-api/landlock.html xz official (maybe...) incident response page: https://tukaani.org/xz-backdoor/
So that function checked if the following C code compiled, and only in that situation enabled the landlock? Except that lone period, hard to recognize because of its small size and proximity to the left edge of the diff, caused the C code to become always invalid, hence keeping the landlock always disabled? That's both vilely impressive and impressively vile. I didn't even spot it on my first read-through.
(void)SYS_landlock_create_ruleset;
with this: (void)SYS_landloсk_create_ruleset;Re: Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux landlock?
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody was watching. Plain and simple. If you have commit access to it, and nobody is there to see, nothing stops you.
Yes but if that’s the sentiment how is this not as problematic as the npm ecosystem.
Re: Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux landlock?
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
white space as a delimiter is why i never use python.
> white space as a delimiter is why i never use python. Whitespace is a delimiter in (almost?) all languages humans use. Whitespace determining which scope you’re in is one of the many problems of making whitespace significant , which might be what you meant.
Re: Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux landlock?
#117Re: Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux landlock?
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
So that function checked if the following C code compiled, and only in that situation enabled the landlock? Except that lone period, hard to recognize because of its small size and proximity to the left edge of the diff, caused the C code to become always invalid, hence keeping the landlock always disabled? That's both vilely impressive and impressively vile. I didn't even spot it on my first read-through.
Even more evil would have been to replace this line (void)SYS_landlock_create_ruleset; with this: (void)SYS_landloсk_create_ruleset;
Re: Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux landlock?
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
So that function checked if the following C code compiled, and only in that situation enabled the landlock? Except that lone period, hard to recognize because of its small size and proximity to the left edge of the diff, caused the C code to become always invalid, hence keeping the landlock always disabled? That's both vilely impressive and impressively vile. I didn't even spot it on my first read-through.
Even more evil would have been to replace this line (void)SYS_landlock_create_ruleset; with this: (void)SYS_landloсk_create_ruleset;
Re: Xz: Can you spot the single character that disabled Linux landlock?
#120On an unrelated note, this malware team has assembled a great dataset for training AIs on identifying security problems. Every commit has some security problem, and the open source community will be going through and identifying them. (Thanks, maintainers, for the cleanup work; definitely not fun!)
One of the cooler uses of AI I've seen!