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

My minute-by-minute response to the LiteLLM malware attack

futuresearch.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 194 posts

Re: My minute-by-minute response to the LiteLLM malware attack

#141

Post by [deleted] »

__mharrison__ wrote: post #55
simonw wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The package in question was live for 46 minutes. It generally takes longer than that for security partners to scan and flag packages. PyPI doesn't block package uploads awaiting security scanning - that would be a bad idea for a number of reasons, most notably (in my opinion) that it would be making promises that PyPI couldn't keep and lull people into a false sense of security.

I realize this is controversial (and many Python folks would claim anti ethical). But I keep wondering if requiring a small payment for registering and updating packages would help. The money could go to maintaining pypix as well as automated AI analysis. Folks who really couldn't afford it could apply for sponsorship.

[deleted]

Re: My minute-by-minute response to the LiteLLM malware attack

#142

Post by charcircuit »

simonw wrote: post #137
charcircuit wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it will be downloadable and then it's up to your own security scanners to catch it. If you find it, it should be reported to pypi and then the scanner should be improved to catch that kind of bypass the next time it comes around. In such a world I don't think pypi is acting negligent.

That's really not very different from what we have right now. PyPI works with scanners which catch a whole lot of malware and are getting better all the time. I think PyPI suggesting that software is safe would be a step down from this because it make promises that PyPI can't keep, and would encourage a false sense of security.

It's less about suggesting that it's safe, and more about avoiding pushing out arbitrary code to thousands of people without checking if you are pushing out malicious code to all of those people. It is the responsible thing to do.

>That's really not very different from what we have right now.

What I'm advocating for is different enough to have stopped this malware from being pushed out to a bunch of people which at the very least would raise the bar of pulling off such an attack.

Re: My minute-by-minute response to the LiteLLM malware attack

#144

Post by thierrydamiba »

lq9AJ8yrfs wrote: post #48
Fibonar wrote: post #2

Callum here, I was the developer that first discovered and reported the litellm vulnerability on Tuesday. I’m sharing the transcript of what it was like figuring out what was going on in real time, unedited with only minor redactions. I didn’t need to recount my thought process after the fact. It’s the very same ones I wrote down to help Claude figure out what was happening. I’m an ML engineer by trade, so having Cla…

As a sometimes peripheral and sometimes primary program manager for vulnerability disclosure, for companies you nearly can't avoid, $0.02 follows. It's a signal vs noise thing. Most of the grief is caused by bottom feeders shoveling anything they can squint at and call a vulnerability and asking for money. Maybe once a month someone would run a free tool and blindly send snippets of the output promising the rest in e…

Isn’t this a great use of llms?

Clone the repo in a sandbox and have the llm identify if the issues are real and the appropriate response based on severity level.

Wouldn’t be perfect but would have caught something like this.

Re: My minute-by-minute response to the LiteLLM malware attack

#147

Post by d-cc »

Fibonar wrote: post #2

Callum here, I was the developer that first discovered and reported the litellm vulnerability on Tuesday. I’m sharing the transcript of what it was like figuring out what was going on in real time, unedited with only minor redactions. I didn’t need to recount my thought process after the fact. It’s the very same ones I wrote down to help Claude figure out what was happening. I’m an ML engineer by trade, so having Cla…

Great work guys, I'm glad you were able to catch this before it propagated further.

Re: My minute-by-minute response to the LiteLLM malware attack

#148

Post by nubinetwork »

ares623 wrote: post #129
nubinetwork wrote: post #123

I have a hard time believing that Claude instantly figured out this was malware... I've fed it obfuscated JavaScript before, and it couldn't figure it out... and then there was the time I tried to teach it nftables... whooo boy...

I think the usual response to that is "have you tried again recently?"

3 weeks ago?

Re: My minute-by-minute response to the LiteLLM malware attack

#150

Post by Aramgutang »

ruszki wrote: post #128

Why is there a discrepancy between the timeline (which supposed to be UTC, and stated as 11:09), and the "shutdown timeline" (stated as 01:36-01:37)? There is no +2:30 timezone, not SDT and not DST. There is a single place on Earth where there is -9:30, and that's Marquesas Islands. What do I miss?

That was a false lead, where Claude was investigating the wrong event.

There's a yellow note on the side of interaction #1 pointing it out, and it's made even more clear if you fully read interactions #5 and #6.

Post reply on HN