Live data from Hacker News

Git client vulnerability announced

github.com

91–100 of 191 posts

Re: Git client vulnerability announced

#91
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

brew update will use `git clone`, so yeah...

If you read the blog post, GitHub has checked all their repos for for this exploit and is blocking it on pushes; cloning from GitHub should be safe.

The blocking pushes is what I was concerned with, along with brew searching pull requests.

Re: Git client vulnerability announced

#92

Anybody have an idea when SourceTree will have an update?

I don't know - but in SourceTree's preferences, you can tell it to "Use System Git". On a Mac, if your system's git isn't what it ought to be, then do `brew install git` (assuming you have Homebrew installed) and make it use that git rather than the Apple one.

Re: Git client vulnerability announced

#93
post #6

I was wondering who found this vulnerability. You have to click through to the Git mailing list announcement[1]: > A big "thanks!" for bringing this issue to us goes to our friends in the Mercurial land, namely, Matt Mackall and Augie Fackler. It'd be interesting to hear how they came across this. Matt is the leader of the Mercurial project and Augie is a Mercurial core contributor. This doesn't seem like a high prio…

It's a very high priority, because there are things that transparently use Git and don't host all their repositories on Github. Update ASAP.

Things which transparently use Git on Windows seem likely to bundle their own copy of Git in their installer. I don't know of specific examples, but if this happens it may be trickier for average people to stay safe. Worse, I don't know how to generate a list of such programs.

Re: Git client vulnerability announced

#94
post #33

Link to the patch that fixed it: https://github.com/git/git/commit/cc2fc7c

It's more than just that. There are a number of additional checks that are performed for the benefit of various insane filesystems like HFS and NTFS. For example: HFS has several codepoints that are ignored for the purposes of name comparison; for example, U+200C. We need to protect against those, too, or else you could have ".git /config" in your repository that maps to ".git/config".

Given that NTFS is closed-source, can we know if these protections are actually sufficient now?

Re: Git client vulnerability announced

#95
post #10
post #8

Homebrew just updated ( https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew/pull/35105 ), so Homebrew users should be covered by brew update && brew upgrade git

Make sure you're not using Apple Git (/usr/bin/git); I renamed mine.

I tend to put /usr/local/bin ahead of /usr/bin on my $PATH, which nicely solves that problem.

Re: Git client vulnerability announced

#96
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, to be clear, this only affects Mac and Windows, correct? (Technically any case changing os) So, update no matter what, unless you're not on an affected system? (this is a question, not a statement)

OK, just so everyone is up to speed: Under what circumstances could a Linux filesystem be case-insensitive? I know of three: FAT (specifically vfat, these days), JFS with Option -O, and CIOPFS (Case Insensitive On Purpose Filesystem): http://superuser.com/questions/290480/case-insensitive-parti... http://linux.die.net/man/8/mkfs.jfs http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/hardy/man8/jfs_mkfs.8.ht... http://www.brain-dump…

As for common filesystems (for some reasonable value of "common"): NTFS, HFS+ and SMB will probably be case insensitive. ZFS may be case insensitive.

There are others that would be exotic these days, like AFP. And with FUSE, could be anything.

Re: Git client vulnerability announced

#97

Short panic summary: your git/hg remotes can get code execution on your machine when you clone/pull if you are on OSX or Windows. Summary: on case-insensitive/normalizing filesystems (default on OSX and Windows) it's possible for .git/config to be overwritten by the tree, probably due to a case-sensitive sanity check when the actual file is insensitive. .git/config can contain arbitrary commands to be run on certain…

I just downloaded git from git-scm.org and I only got 2.0.1. :/

It's now available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/git-osx-installer/files/late...

Re: Git client vulnerability announced

#98

I am running OSX Yosemite. ➜ ~ git --version git version 1.9.3 (Apple Git-50) When I navigate to http://git-scm.com/download/mac it downloads 2.0.1 which was released on 6/29/14. How can I upgrade to 1.9.5?

Apple has updated this in Xcode 6.2 beta 3: http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204147

Re: Git client vulnerability announced

#100
Ouch! And I thought the OpenBSD people were paranoid for sticking with CVS. (because Git is too bloated and complex in their view, so they weren't able to review it thoroughly, which would have been the only way for them to trust it.)

I always get a strange, uneasy feeiling when the tin foil hats turn out to be right.

I wonder if they are right on GPG, too. For those who don't know this: The OpenBSD people refuse to sign their releases with that "far too complex" GPG tool, but created their own lightweight "signify" tool instead. [1]

[1] http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/signify

Post reply on HN