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

Mini Shai-Hulud Strikes Again: 314 npm Packages Compromised

safedep.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 329 posts

Re: Mini Shai-Hulud Strikes Again: 314 npm Packages Compromised

#81

Post by zenoprax »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #77
mentalgear wrote: post #13

> Docker Container Escape > The payload checks for the Docker socket and, if present, attempts container escape through three sequential methods: So even if you're running devcontainers / VMs, these worms are already trying to escape. Make sure you're running a rootless VM engine (e.g. podman instead of docker) !

Despite what some people will tell you (including many in the security indistry), Docker is not a strong security boundary, and it should not be treated as one. It shares a kernel with the running system. It reminds me of the good old days when people would hand out low privilege Linux accounts and rely on the kernel to prevent privilige escalation. Docker is literally the same thing, just with extra steps. Especiall…

[dead]

Re: Mini Shai-Hulud Strikes Again: 314 npm Packages Compromised

#82

Post by pingou »

jcgl wrote: post #60
wolfi1 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how do containers solve the problem? if they are connected to the internet (and they are) you have got the same problem, if the credentials can be read by the container, at least to my understanding

On my personal machine, I run OpenSnitch. Much better defense against data exfil if you reject outbound connections to unexpected/unwanted hosts.

That wouldn't help in that case as exfiltrated data is committed to public GitHub repositories. Unless you have to accept every time an app posts or requests data from known hosts?

Re: Mini Shai-Hulud Strikes Again: 314 npm Packages Compromised

#83

Post by zenoprax »

Havoc wrote: post #49
vsgherzi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish we would’ve gotten something more like jails or zones. Or better yet put the containers in a jail or zone. Is there a comprehensive sandbox for Linux like the bsds have?

Unprivileged LXCs get pretty close. Less unified design wise but on some aspects better - kernel escape doesn’t land you on a 0 UID

> "kernel escape doesn’t land you on a 0 UID"

I'm not sure I agree/understand. If you've somehow bypassed AppArmor and cgroup mechanisms then any UID/GID remapping is irrelevant. At this point you're in a position to directly manage memory.

What do you mean by "kernel escape"?

Re: Mini Shai-Hulud Strikes Again: 314 npm Packages Compromised

#84

Post by evertheylen »

mentalgear wrote: post #13

> Docker Container Escape > The payload checks for the Docker socket and, if present, attempts container escape through three sequential methods: So even if you're running devcontainers / VMs, these worms are already trying to escape. Make sure you're running a rootless VM engine (e.g. podman instead of docker) !

I rely on podman for my "devcontainers": https://github.com/evertheylen/probox. If anyone can point me to the weak points in my setup I'd appreciate it!

Re: Mini Shai-Hulud Strikes Again: 314 npm Packages Compromised

#85

Post by halfcat »

sevenzero wrote: post #41
AgentME wrote: post #39

Another supply chain attack found and blocked in a day. Everyone regularly using npm to install new packages should be using npm's min-release-age setting to avoid package versions that are newer than a few days old to avoid most attacks in practice like this. You can set it to two days with `npm config set min-release-age=2` for example. https://cooldowns.dev/ has info about equivalent settings in other dependency m…

Or just use dependencies from 6 years ago and never update them like most companies i ever worked for.

Accidental true leadership

Re: Mini Shai-Hulud Strikes Again: 314 npm Packages Compromised

#86

Post by beardedwizard »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #77
mentalgear wrote: post #13

> Docker Container Escape > The payload checks for the Docker socket and, if present, attempts container escape through three sequential methods: So even if you're running devcontainers / VMs, these worms are already trying to escape. Make sure you're running a rootless VM engine (e.g. podman instead of docker) !

Despite what some people will tell you (including many in the security indistry), Docker is not a strong security boundary, and it should not be treated as one. It shares a kernel with the running system. It reminds me of the good old days when people would hand out low privilege Linux accounts and rely on the kernel to prevent privilige escalation. Docker is literally the same thing, just with extra steps. Especiall…

Yeah because I'd rather trade one kernel surface for another.

Re: Mini Shai-Hulud Strikes Again: 314 npm Packages Compromised

#87

Post by beardedwizard »

zenoprax wrote: post #83
Havoc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unprivileged LXCs get pretty close. Less unified design wise but on some aspects better - kernel escape doesn’t land you on a 0 UID

> "kernel escape doesn’t land you on a 0 UID" I'm not sure I agree/understand. If you've somehow bypassed AppArmor and cgroup mechanisms then any UID/GID remapping is irrelevant. At this point you're in a position to directly manage memory. What do you mean by "kernel escape"?

I'm enjoying how nobody in this thread seems to know what a container actually is, and folks may be surprised to learn kernel namespace underpins both docker and lxc.

Re: Mini Shai-Hulud Strikes Again: 314 npm Packages Compromised

#88

Post by grey-area »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #58
moi2388 wrote: post #3

Because of course it’s npm

Every programming language package manager is affected. Any random person can sign up and push packages. They are all equivalent to the Arch Linux User Repository and have the exact same caveats.

I last added a new dependency to a large project I work on a couple of years ago. So no, not all ecosystems are the same.

The culture makes a difference.

Re: Mini Shai-Hulud Strikes Again: 314 npm Packages Compromised

#89

Post by CGamesPlay »

wolfi1 wrote: post #14
mentalgear wrote: post #12

The situation is getting crazy ... personally I have already uninstalled node, python and all package managers from my machine and instead only use them in devcontainers / VMs. But even if the dev community comes up with super hardened security, I fear in at least a year the models will be good enough in social engineering that we are still running a losing game.

how do containers solve the problem? if they are connected to the internet (and they are) you have got the same problem, if the credentials can be read by the container, at least to my understanding

Things on my workstation that the container does not have access to: browser cookies, 1Password cli, SSH keys (even if I allow the SSH agent socket), cargo publish tokens (unless it’s a rust project), npm tokens (unless it’s an npm project), and not to mention anything relating to my other clients (don’t compromise my employer when I vibe install some dep for a random side project).

Re: Mini Shai-Hulud Strikes Again: 314 npm Packages Compromised

#90

Post by test1235 »

breezerbottles wrote: post #68
cess11 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wondering about Mr Bones' Wild Ride and suspecting it might be a reference to the 1991 movie Nothing But Trouble I took a look, and found I had remembered it wrong. The roller coaster in that movie was called Mr Bonestripper, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEZEgd8GjJc . Instead it comes from Roller Coaster Tycoon 2, https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/mr-bones-wild-ride . As for the comparison with spam, there we kind of…

There's also Mr. Toad's Wild Ride at Disney parks, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Toad%27s_Wild_Ride

I always remember that reference from mallrats ... I had never thought to look up what they were actually talking about
Post reply on HN