Live data from Hacker News

Linux ransomware in the wild

forums.gentoo.org

11–20 of 112 posts

Re: Linux ransomware in the wild

#11
post #8
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed that was implied for every HN reader. But even though I have noscript and ublock with a lot of things blocked you never have 100% coverage.

People claim to run noscript but every page calls js from 10 different domains. How on earth do you navigate what to let through and what to block? And at some point, to me, it’s just too many mouse clicks!

It is tedious, but I do it. If I ever get lazy I always select "temporarily add..."

Re: Linux ransomware in the wild

#12

Nice read but nothing particularly special here and it happened months ago. The title is alarmist. TL;DR: The user ran firefox as root and the attack happened through adobe-flash. Hardly a sophisticated attack.

I'm not sure I agree with your anlaysis. True the user ran Firefox as root (which is terrible practice), but also had the same problems on a different system that never ran firefox:

> Interesting to note that another system, also a sister, seems to have caught the same, and I can't recall ever having run anything but VirtualBox VMs on that one, it's turned off right now until I figure out a recovery plan, so at least 2 systems to recover, and have one clean one to do so from.

That said, it could easily be explained if SSH private keys weren't encrypted (passphrase protected) and allowed an easy hop from infected to sister. And if somebody is running Firefox as root, it doesn't seem too extreme to assume they might have unencrypted private keys...

So it may just be from running Firefox as root, but it's still possible it could be from other things.

Re: Linux ransomware in the wild

#14
I don't understand from this post why run Firefox as root and why have in addition flash enabled on Linux.

But it's still interest that they bother with making ransomware the first place for Linux.

Re: Linux ransomware in the wild

#15
post #8
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed that was implied for every HN reader. But even though I have noscript and ublock with a lot of things blocked you never have 100% coverage.

People claim to run noscript but every page calls js from 10 different domains. How on earth do you navigate what to let through and what to block? And at some point, to me, it’s just too many mouse clicks!

For the most part here are some patterns I've noticed:

1. when pages don't work at all, try looking for cloudflare links. They might have their JS and CSS hosted there

2. When you want to play videos or audio look for *cdn domains (aliexpress has alicdn for example). These ones I tend to add to my whitelist.

3. If you have something like google apis you can add it to the whitelist and add a sitespecific conditional in adblock or ublock.

Re: Linux ransomware in the wild

#16
post #8
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed that was implied for every HN reader. But even though I have noscript and ublock with a lot of things blocked you never have 100% coverage.

People claim to run noscript but every page calls js from 10 different domains. How on earth do you navigate what to let through and what to block? And at some point, to me, it’s just too many mouse clicks!

It can be tedious; but so can waiting for somebody's poorly written javascript to lag your browser.

I started blocking all JS by default for security, but I've actually found it to be a much better user experience as well. You deal with the annoyance of having to whitelist domains, and sure a lot of SPAs don't work at all until you enable JS for the client-side rendering, but many, many websites work far better because all the content I care about is server-side rendered and JS is used to load ads that disrupt the experience (this is especially true on mobile. For that I highly recommend the Brave browser). You'd be surprised how much better it can make parts of the web tho to have no JS :-)

Re: Linux ransomware in the wild

#17
It doesn't seem to have been mentioned on the forums, which is alarming, but the correct response to finding out your machine has been owned is to shut it the fuck down. Right away. Then boot up a rescue CD, which will have a known working system (read: not compromised), from which you can do some forensic work to find out how you were owned and what data is recoverable.

Take the data you can recover offline and then reinstall from scratch. Don't try to fix it, just recover what you can and throw the rest away.

Re: Linux ransomware in the wild

#18
post #13

Not trying to blame the user, just trying to understand: why would someone ever run a web browser as root? A text editor to edit system files, ok, but a browser?

Probably because they were lazy and just logged in as root "like they do in windows" because they don't know how to sudo

Or maybe that was not the source of the infection, just ssh enabled with a weak password

Re: Linux ransomware in the wild

#19
post #8
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed that was implied for every HN reader. But even though I have noscript and ublock with a lot of things blocked you never have 100% coverage.

People claim to run noscript but every page calls js from 10 different domains. How on earth do you navigate what to let through and what to block? And at some point, to me, it’s just too many mouse clicks!

Try uMatrix.

The uMatrix UI makes managing this a lot easier.

Re: Linux ransomware in the wild

#20

Nice read but nothing particularly special here and it happened months ago. The title is alarmist. TL;DR: The user ran firefox as root and the attack happened through adobe-flash. Hardly a sophisticated attack.

Why does it matter if Firefox ran as root or not? I agree it's terrible practice in principle. But most people will run Firefox as their ordinary user, which normally has full access to the files in their home directory.

If someone gets arbitrary code execution under your user, they can erase/encrypt your files. Who cares if the OS files are safe. All the data you really care about will be gone.

Post reply on HN