Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notepad++ supply chain attack breakdown

securelist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 205 posts

Re: Notepad++ supply chain attack breakdown

#61

Post by IcyWindows »

josephg wrote: post #17
taftster wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost feel like this should just be the default action for all applications. I don't need them to escape out of a defined root. It's almost like your documents and application are effectively locked together. You have to give permissions for an app to extra data from outside of the sandbox. Linux has this capability, of course. And it seems like MacOS prompts me a lot for "such and such application wants to access…

I've been arguing for this for years. There's no reason every random binary should have unfettered, invisible access to everything on my computer as if it were me . iOS and Android both implement these security policies correctly. Why can't desktop operating systems?

Windows has had this for over a decade, but no one wants to put their application in a sandbox.

Re: Notepad++ supply chain attack breakdown

#62

Post by h4x0rr »

black_knight wrote: post #42
troad wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MacOS has been getting a lot of flak recently for (correct) UI reasons, but I honestly feel like they're the closest to the money with granular app permissions. Linux people are very resistant to this, but the future is going to be sandboxed iOS style apps. Not because OS vendors want to control what apps do, but because users do. If the FOSS community continues to ignore proper security sandboxing and distribution o…

I think we could get a lot further if we implement proper capability based security. Meaning that the authority to perform actions follows the objects around. I think that is how we get powerful tools and freedom, but still address the security issues and actually achieve the principle of least privilege. For FreeBSD there is capsicum, but it seems a bit inflexible to me. Would love to see more experiments on Linux a…

Eli5, what is that supposed to mean?

Re: Notepad++ supply chain attack breakdown

#63

Post by akdev1l »

IcyWindows wrote: post #61
josephg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been arguing for this for years. There's no reason every random binary should have unfettered, invisible access to everything on my computer as if it were me . iOS and Android both implement these security policies correctly. Why can't desktop operating systems?

Windows has had this for over a decade, but no one wants to put their application in a sandbox.

If a sandbox is optional then it is not really a good sandbox

naturally even flatpak on Linux suffers from this as legacy software simply doesn’t have a concept of permission models and this cannot be bolted on after the fact

Re: Notepad++ supply chain attack breakdown

#64

Post by okanat »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #45
troad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notoriously not actually secure, at least in the case of Flatpak. (Can't speak to Snap) Not sure how something can be called a sandbox without the actual box part. As Siri is to AI, Flatpak is to sandboxes.

Doesn't it use bwrap under the hood? what's wrong with that?

Many apps require unnecessarily broad permissions with Flatpak. Unlike Android and iOS apps they weren't designed for environments with limited permissions.

Re: Notepad++ supply chain attack breakdown

#65

Post by paffdragon »

LostMyWords wrote: post #44
kotaKat wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First three things I install on any machine - 7zip, Notepad++, alternate browser.

Yes, but I start with the browser. What are the Notepad++ alternatives on Linux and MacOS, for those times when I have to use them?

Sublime maybe?

Re: Notepad++ supply chain attack breakdown

#66

Post by okanat »

akdev1l wrote: post #63
IcyWindows wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows has had this for over a decade, but no one wants to put their application in a sandbox.

If a sandbox is optional then it is not really a good sandbox naturally even flatpak on Linux suffers from this as legacy software simply doesn’t have a concept of permission models and this cannot be bolted on after the fact

The containers are literally the "bolting on". You need to give the illusion of the software is running under a full OS but you can actually mount the system directories as read-only.

Re: Notepad++ supply chain attack breakdown

#67

Post by [deleted] »

h4x0rr wrote: post #62
black_knight wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we could get a lot further if we implement proper capability based security. Meaning that the authority to perform actions follows the objects around. I think that is how we get powerful tools and freedom, but still address the security issues and actually achieve the principle of least privilege. For FreeBSD there is capsicum, but it seems a bit inflexible to me. Would love to see more experiments on Linux a…

Eli5, what is that supposed to mean?

[deleted]

Re: Notepad++ supply chain attack breakdown

#69

Post by ashishb »

lifeisgood99 wrote: post #57
ashishb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also has persistent permissions. Think about it from a real world perspective. I knock on your door. You invite me to sit with you in your living room. I can't easily sneak into your bed room. Further, your temporary access ends as soon as you exit my house. The same should happen with apps. When I run 'notepad dir1/file1.txt', the package should not sneakily be able to access dir2. Further, as soon as I exit the…

A better example would be requiring the mailman to obtain written permission to step on your property every day. Convenience trumps maximal security for most people.

I would configure mailman with permanent write access to the mailbox area

That's what I with my sandbox right now

Post reply on HN