@hierarchon @iliana Oh yeah, I don't doubt that there are edgecases where this *would* have helped. There are some of those for most things.
What bothers me more is the outsized importance that people tend to place on it - for a while, everybody and their dog was talking loudly about how post-install scripts should be disallowed, as if that will solve all the dependency security issues overnight...
@noplasticshower @swelljoe (I get paid for auditing open-source dependencies, actually)
@hierarchon @iliana Thought in a similar vein: it makes no sense to get all suspicious about post-install scripts in a package manager; the purpose of the package manager is literally *to install software. That will run on the system.*
The malicious code could be anywhere, whether you allow post-install scripts or not really isn't going to matter...
I feel like this is another very painful reminder of the difference between the commons and a supply chain.
@mcfly (Which can be a real cost; some developers are going to insist on dubious programming practices, and that means simply not being able to use or distribute their work.)
@mcfly $customer auditing involves everything that is part of the release, so also test files - an eval on anything related to a binary file would definitely be considered something that warrants suspicion and probably rejection.
Like, it's just a general rule of "if it's in the release, it must be explainable and possible to reason about". Google dependencies frequently get rejected because they do not meet this standard...
I think that that one rule alone - "anything that cannot be explained, cannot be accepted" - would prevent most attempts at backdoors, to be honest. At the cost of not tolerating needlessly bad code.
@mcfly I was thinking through whether this code would have made it through the dependency auditing process at $customer, and my conclusion was "no, it would not" - they have a policy that code that we cannot understand will never be approved, and this is basically why that policy exists...
https://boehs.org/node/everything-i-know-about-the-xz-backdoor
I have begun a post explaining this situation in a more detailed writeup. This is updating in realtime, and there is a lot still missing.
Does everyone understand how much luck was involved in this exploit in #xz being discovered so quickly? And, what it tells us about the attacker?
This was a subtle and sophisticated attack implemented over _years_. The attacker was made a co-maintainer two years ago, and they made numerous innocuous-looking and seemingly unrelated changes over that time, sometimes through a second account, that eventually added up to a backdoor. Along with many innocent commits, too. #Linux
I'm not saying that it looks like someone has specifically targeted xz and played the long game by helping out a maintainer that was overworked and suffered from mental health issues
but it does look like someone has specifically targeted xz and played the long game by helping out a maintainer that was overworked and suffered from mental health issues
@technomancy @alilly My understanding is that the release tarball was easier to work with in some way because it needed less dependencies or something.
The details are unclear to me but I guess the release tarball came with some stuff pre-generated? (Which, uh, yeah)
More thoughts on #xz: it seems that the bootstrap code for the backdoor was hiding in difficult-to-understand code. I hope this prompts people to start taking code readability seriously as a security factor.
It's much harder to hide malicious code in code that's easy to understand.
Technical debt collector and general hype-hater. Early 30s, non-binary, ND, poly, relationship anarchist, generally queer.
- No alt text (request) = no boost.
- Boosts OK for all boostable posts.
- DMs are open.
- Flirting welcome, but be explicit if you want something out of it!
- The devil doesn't need an advocate; no combative arguing in my mentions.
Sometimes horny on main (behind CW), very much into kink (bondage, freeuse, CNC, and other stuff), and believe it or not, very much a submissive bottom :p
My spoons are limited, so I may not always have the energy to respond to messages.
Strong views about abolishing oppression, hierarchy, agency, and self-governance - but I also trust people by default and give them room to grow, unless they give me reason not to. That all also applies to technology and how it's built.