This draws to mind the dialog that opens when you open a new project in Cursor (and VSCode too, I think), where the IDE asks the user if they trust the project they're opening. Is Cursor under the impression that this is sufficient security apparatus?
Cursor 0day: When Full Disclosure Becomes the Only Protection Left
31–40 of 222 posts
Re: Cursor 0day: When Full Disclosure Becomes the Only Protection Left
#32> Until the IDE is patched, open untrusted repositories only in an isolated VM, Windows Sandbox, or other disposable environment. Got to wonder why trusted repositories are excluded...
Except it might come from a trusted repo. Some of the biggest repos have been recently targeted in supply chain attacks. Consider for a moment
1. Attacker takes over maintenance of a widely used Cursor extension
2. Attacker adds a remote backdoor to monitor which repos are being maintained
3. Attacker decides to only infect the largest one with a git commit hook
4. The developer didn’t even know they just included git.exe in their commit
5. The developer is a sole maintainer on the repo and merges their own PR without review (because they(/their AI) wrote it)
6. Now a trusted repo is infected
7. A contributor pulls down the infected repo and opens cursor
Re: Cursor 0day: When Full Disclosure Becomes the Only Protection Left
#33Does the git lookup run before the trust check, or ignore it?
Re: Cursor 0day: When Full Disclosure Becomes the Only Protection Left
#34Frankly, if you git clone a compromised repository, I'm not sure that a vulnerability of the class "compromised code in that repository will be executed" is all that major a concern. There are plenty of IDEs that will go autonomously run npm installs (with post-install scripts) for you when they detect a package.json. This isn't all that different than that.
They could throw up a warning like "do you trust this repository" oh wait they already do, and no one cares. Security is hard. Ultimately if you have compromised code on your machine, all bets are off.
Re: Cursor 0day: When Full Disclosure Becomes the Only Protection Left
#35I guess this is only specific to a file in the root of the repo, so it doesn't allow for an NPM supply chain attack?
Re: Cursor 0day: When Full Disclosure Becomes the Only Protection Left
#36This report reads a bit like AI writing :/ You need to have an already malicious payload on your pc to make this exploit work (via clone/download/magic). I can understand the severity of the exploit but at the same time I’d hope to not have to run into this situation for it to happen in the first place
I think you’ve got it wrong; no malicious payload need be on your box already. That’s not what the article says.
Re: Cursor 0day: When Full Disclosure Becomes the Only Protection Left
#37All too common... It's sad yet understandable how a company would not prioritize security. At the same time, it's also understandable how a security start-up, upon (rightly) getting fed up waiting, decide to publicly disclose, as a way to scrape some PR out of the sunk cost. Public disclosure has a place. But if you truly care about helping, you could do more than bumping on HackerOne and messaging the CISO once on L…
This comment is so weird. It is so vague to me and feels so off, like an alien from Men in Black trying to pass as a human.
How do they not truly care about helping? Also what sunk cost? What does that mean?
Re: Cursor 0day: When Full Disclosure Becomes the Only Protection Left
#38I guess this is only specific to a file in the root of the repo, so it doesn't allow for an NPM supply chain attack?
It has nothing to do with npm. However, a binary could be configured to extract your git/npm secrets using this exploit, which could then lead to a npm supply chain attack (or pip, etc. etc.).
Re: Cursor 0day: When Full Disclosure Becomes the Only Protection Left
#39It's pretty weird for cursor to run arbitrary exe file without prompting, and alarming that the researchers did not get a proper response for months. But the example with calculator is a bit misleading I think, you'll have to have a malicious exe already in the system and downloaded, and if cursor tried to run my understanding is that ACL should immediately kick in and you'll be asked for permission to run a new, uns…
And what'll the prompt say? "Do you want to run git.exe?"? I'll probably assume Cursor needs to run git but permissions got messed up somewhere and click right through that.
I haven't used Windows in a while so pardon if I'm missing something.
Re: Cursor 0day: When Full Disclosure Becomes the Only Protection Left
#40I'm not sure I fully agree with this being a major vuln. There's a lot of up front scary text which was raising a lot of red flags until it actually discussed the "what".
An actor has to place a malicious .exe in the user's code folder, named git.exe, for this to take place.
I see this akin to something like saying "replacing their .bashrc with an alias that says `ls` instead executes `/tmp/mega-big-virus.sh` is a vuln".
Yes it's a vector, but if they've placed something in your filesystem like that already, you've already been compromised.