Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#41

Post by hedsick » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 12:53 PM UTC

wok4899 wrote: post #28

anotherlogin448 wrote: post #15

And yet everything is open source and easily auditable. Most likely OP got pwnd and clearly is unable to understand sarcasm. You all really think that hotio snuck a crypto miner in somehow with all clearly open source code - and not a single person but OP noticed for years?

With the SSH/NPM supply chain attack, we all live in fear now. It just need one very smart person to deploy such hack. I'm not saying hotio did something, all I am saying that with new information, we all should check our deployment. Along with OP I'm affected, where I never have exposed the docker to world ever. So we should not deny the possibility of something off here.

You aren’t affected though… the output you posted clearly shows the only response to that process grep was your own grep…

Re: undefined

#42

Post by bakugo » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 1:04 PM UTC

remnant24 wrote: post #35

bakugo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brand new account, 7 different comments on this post, all aggressively trying to discredit it. A bit suspicious, don't you think?

Nope. How else are they supposed to make comments if they didn't have an account here yet? I had to create this account just to answer you—is that suspicious too?

> I had to create this account just to answer you—is that suspicious too?

No, but if you were to make 6 more comments under the same post all saying the same thing in an overly confident and aggressive tone, it would be.

Re: undefined

#43

Post by remnant24 » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 1:53 PM UTC

bakugo wrote: post #42

remnant24 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. How else are they supposed to make comments if they didn't have an account here yet? I had to create this account just to answer you—is that suspicious too?

> I had to create this account just to answer you—is that suspicious too? No, but if you were to make 6 more comments under the same post all saying the same thing in an overly confident and aggressive tone, it would be.

And yet, I probably would have done that if he hadn't done it first. Your incitement to suspicion is highly biased and also an ad hominem diversion.

Re: undefined

#44

Post by remnant24 » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 1:59 PM UTC

thephyber wrote: post #36

remnant24 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. How else are they supposed to make comments if they didn't have an account here yet? I had to create this account just to answer you—is that suspicious too?

It’s a fair observation. Their comments are extremely high confidence (failing to recognize that accidents and supply chain attacks do sometimes happen) and because they are new and posting frequently in the same thread, their account shows the signs of a bot/disinfo campaign (which does happen on HN).

It's a completely useless observation. Doesn't add anything productive to the topic.

Re: undefined

#45

Post by ktosobcy » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:10 PM UTC

Scion9066 wrote: post #10

ktosobcy wrote: post #4

Why use it when there is an official one: ` https://github.com/qbittorrent/docker-qbittorrent-nox ` ? o_O

Lack of a tagged stable/release version with libtorrent 2.0 for one.

is there a final/stable release with it?

also: is that really such a dealbreaker?

Re: undefined

#46

Post by Scion9066 » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:33 PM UTC

ktosobcy wrote: post #45

Scion9066 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of a tagged stable/release version with libtorrent 2.0 for one.

is there a final/stable release with it? also: is that really such a dealbreaker?

It's been supported by qBittorrent since 4.4.0 released in January 2022 when built with libtorrent 2.0. The official docker images still use libtorrent 1.2 though as that is the default.

Probably not a dealbreaker for most but it might be hindering Bittorrent v2 adoption.

Re: undefined

#47

Post by wok4899 » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 2:55 PM UTC

iogjoertsnbu wrote: post #34

wok4899 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never have exposed this container to the world ever, and my server do report the existence of such binary. That is the reason based on CPU usage I suspect that mining never triggered. > ps -ef | grep netservlet > root 3708105 3665360 0 08:06 pts/2 00:00:00 grep netservlet

that's just grep showing you your own grep process lol. you can do ps -ef | grep foobarbaroof and get the same thing...

Damn it!! Yeah, morning bran without coffee! Thank you for pointing it out.

My bad.

Re: undefined

#48

Post by jamesnorden » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 3:29 PM UTC

remnant24 wrote: post #44

thephyber wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a fair observation. Their comments are extremely high confidence (failing to recognize that accidents and supply chain attacks do sometimes happen) and because they are new and posting frequently in the same thread, their account shows the signs of a bot/disinfo campaign (which does happen on HN).

It's a completely useless observation. Doesn't add anything productive to the topic.

It's not useless, a new account commenting what amounts to "There's nothing wrong, stop looking", multiple times, is the opposite of assuring.

Re: undefined

#49

Post by ktosobcy » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 3:42 PM UTC

Scion9066 wrote: post #46

ktosobcy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is there a final/stable release with it? also: is that really such a dealbreaker?

It's been supported by qBittorrent since 4.4.0 released in January 2022 when built with libtorrent 2.0. The official docker images still use libtorrent 1.2 though as that is the default. Probably not a dealbreaker for most but it might be hindering Bittorrent v2 adoption.

hmm... I just checked the (official?) macOS build and it uses 1.2.20.0 so there's that.

Looking at the downloads (I'm using brew) it seems that not many people uses libtorrent2… (https://sourceforge.net/projects/qbittorrent/files/qbittorre...)

Re: undefined

#50

Post by Nullabillity » Tue, Sep 23, 2025, 4:03 PM UTC

remnant24 wrote: post #35

bakugo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brand new account, 7 different comments on this post, all aggressively trying to discredit it. A bit suspicious, don't you think?

Nope. How else are they supposed to make comments if they didn't have an account here yet? I had to create this account just to answer you—is that suspicious too?

You can back up a debunking with receipts or reputation. Ideally, both.

You and anotherlogin448 have neither, but also show incredible aggression towards anyone pointing that out.

Your confidence might actually be warranted, but there's no reason for any one of us to take you on your word, and neither of you have given anything else.