Unfortunately, this is how good bad actors work: with a very long-term point of view. There is no “harmless” project any more.
I imagine it might be easier to just compromise a weakly protected account than to actual put in a 2 years long effort with real contributions. If we mandated MFA for all contributors who contribute to these really important projects then we can know with greater certainty if it was really a long con vs. a recently compromised account.
Backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to SSH server compromise
581–590 of 1001 posts
Re: Backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to SSH server compromise
#582https://github.com/tukaani-project/xz vs https://github.com/JiaT75
Re: Backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to SSH server compromise
#583Earlier quoted context omitted.
Debian have reverted xz-utils (in unstable) to 5.4.5 – actual version string is “5.6.1+really5.4.5-1”. So presumably that version's safe; we shall see…
Is that version truly vetted? "Jia Tan" has been the official maintainer since 5.4.3, could have pushed code under any other pseudonym, and controls the signing keys. I would have felt better about reverting farther back, xz hasn't had any breaking changes for a long time.
Re: Backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to SSH server compromise
#584Very annoying - the apparent author of the backdoor was in communication with me over several weeks trying to get xz 5.6.x added to Fedora 40 & 41 because of it's "great new features". We even worked with him to fix the valgrind issue (which it turns out now was caused by the backdoor he had added). We had to race last night to fix the problem after an inadvertent break of the embargo. He has been part of the xz proj…
because of it's "great new features" "great" for whom? I've seen enough of the industry to immediately feel suspicious when someone uses that sort of phrasing in an attempt to persuade me. It's no different from claiming a "better experience" or similar.
Re: Backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to SSH server compromise
#585Fascinating. Just yesterday the author added a `SECURITY.md` file to the `xz-java` project. > If you discover a security vulnerability in this project please report it privately. *Do not disclose it as a public issue.* This gives us time to work with you to fix the issue before public exposure, reducing the chance that the exploit will be used before a patch is released. Reading that in a different light, it says giv…
Security Researchers : Is this request-for-private-disclosure + "90-days before public" reasonable? It's a SEVERE issue, to my mind, and 90 days seems too long to me.
Re: Backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to SSH server compromise
#586So many security companies publishing daily generic blog posts about "serious supply chain compromises" in various distros on packages with 0 downloads, and yet it takes a developer debugging performance issues to find an actual compromise. I worked in the software supply chain field and cannot resist feeling the entire point of that industry is to make companies pay for a security certificate so you can shift the bl…
> cannot resist feeling the entire point of that industry is to make companies pay for a security certificate so you can shift the blame onto someone else when things go wrong. That's the entire point. You did everything you could by getting someone else look at it and saying it's fine.
Re: Backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to SSH server compromise
#587Re: Backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to SSH server compromise
#588A couple of years ago I wrote a Go library that wraps the xz C code and allows you to do xz compression in Go: https://github.com/jamespfennell/xz About a week ago I received the first PR on that repo, to upgrade to 5.6.1. I thought it was odd to get such a random PR...it's not the same GitHub account as upstream though.
Hey all, I’m the author of that PR. Just posted to Github with additional context: https://github.com/jamespfennell/xz/pull/2#issuecomment-2027...
Re: Backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to SSH server compromise
#589Candidly how would someone protect against a vulnerability like this?