Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

63% Positive

Analyzed from 1432 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#source#open#software#malware#repositories#code#github#repository#principle#https

Discussion (54 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

emodendroketabout 2 hours ago
I have to say, the principle that open-source software can't do anything nefarious because the source is open just hasn't held up for a lot of reasons -- including that nobody has the time to inspect the code, let alone ensure that it matches the binaries; and also that GitHub has become a distribution hub for software used by lots of people with no ability or interest in auditing the software they use.
spicyusernameabout 1 hour ago
The choice is between code you can validate and code you can't, not code that has malware and code that doesn't.
ffacu3 minutes ago
I think that this is becoming increasingly true only for large, well-known repositories, where the maintainers have a lot to lose by doing anything shady. I don't think the React team could get away with doing something like that, for example.
embedding-shapeabout 2 hours ago
> the principle that open-source software can't do anything nefarious because the source is open just hasn't held up for a lot of reasons

You've been living on such a principle? That sounds insane, why would something not be nefarious just because you can read the code?

The way I was "raised" by FOSS greybeards screaming at me through web forums, was that any software available on 3rd party websites anyone can upload anything to, will be filled with viruses and malware, and this was early 2000s. Surely people still advocate for this mindset today, when it's even more likely?

emodendroketabout 2 hours ago
No, I've not been "living on" such a principle but it was a big claim for "the bazaar."
embedding-shapeabout 2 hours ago
Aha, wasn't that argument more about that closed source software is more likely to hide stuff you don't agree with, than FOSS? Not necessarily that FOSS won't have any viruses or malware, but it's at least less likely. That was my take away, but long time ago I read the book admittedly, I might misremember or transformed it automagically over time.
abc123abc123about 1 hour ago
You'd better read it again, because that claim does not figure in that text. You might mean that with more eyes on the code, more bugs are found, than with no eyes on the code. But that is not what you are saying here.
tuwtuwtuwtuwabout 2 hours ago
> You've been living on such a principle?

I have not, but in case you missed it, this principle has been used by open source proponents for decades. I'm an open source developer myself, but always found it odd.

nixosbestosabout 1 hour ago
No, it's really not, and really hasn't been. Do people truly have such poor reasoning and logic skills?

"Closed source software is inscrutable, impossible for me to fix, impossible for me to review the source" is absolutely a distinct statement from "it is impossible to hide malware in open-source software". I've literally never heard someone claim the latter.

(edit for coherency, thanks graemep)

fsfloverabout 2 hours ago
This is not the argument at all. It's just easier to discover malware in closed software.
ptxabout 1 hour ago
The problem the article is describing seems to have little to do with open source. There were GitHub repositories that had links added in their READMEs to a zip file containing compiled binaries.

GitHub is not a curated software repository. It's essentially no different from some random stranger linking to some binaries on a forum. (There are communities that seem to have no concerns about running unknown binaries from strangers in forum threads, but I wouldn't recommend it.)

moomin16 minutes ago
Ironically, one of the promises of AI: enough eyeballs.

The catch is the eyeballs can also be used to generate exploits.

atmosxabout 1 hour ago
Not true. If statistics offer a “measure” of reality, my guess is that “OS doing nefarious things” must fall between 0,005% and 0,007%. In any case compared to the extracted value it’s … nothing.
Yokohiiiabout 1 hour ago
If all projects on github were closed source with public "trust me bro" binaries the situation would be of course much better.
birksherty5 minutes ago
"Trust me bro" is what people say about open source everywhere when it's not true.
jp0001about 2 hours ago
I uploaded a sample found here (https://github.com/alexct142010-cell/McBackuper ) to Genus Codes (need an account): https://genuscodes.com/results/7ad4b911d05a12f91ab27ba3baa35... Seems to be related to the disco trojan family, by way of normalized function matching at 50% to malicious file https://genuscodes.com/results/eddbc29db4677e00c1a901aadbadb... and a normalized 50% match to https://genuscodes.com/results/fdb6cff68a2a8c08779d64a7cf61d...

Virustotal link: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/fdb6cff68a2a8c08779d64a7...

gus_11 minutes ago
A year ago a similar attack was reported and I think that there have been similar campaigns reported this year: https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch/discussions/1290#di...

  - This is a new repository, not a fork
  - All repositories have different contributors and different names
  From the last two points, it becomes clear that even if we find one such repository, we won’t be able to find other similar repositories using it.
In previous campaigns the repositories were linked to a few users. But those users had starred other users, that at the same time had also cloned other repositories with the malware. Sometimes the malicious repository had been cloned from another malicious repo, and if you listed the repositories and "friends" of that user, all were part of the botnet.

Also, github doesn't delete repositories and accounts, they mark them as deleted. If you use their api you can still list them.

StableAlkyneabout 2 hours ago
> I typed the project name into Google, and my repository appeared in the results. I entered the same query into Bing, and someone else’s repository appeared in the results

Side story, this kind of thing is what made me stop using Bing.

I had been using it as the default for searches (it sucks, but it's at least not Google), until I landed on a phishing page for my bank (I haven't committed it to memory yet). The page was a near perfect copy, and I would easily have gotten pwnd by it if they didn't have a modal asking me to run some code in my terminal for "security activation" that made me go "that's a little odd... Is this the right address OH SHIT that's a .ru domain"

I never see Google return phishing pages or typo squatters in the first page. Bing constantly returns that stuff in the first several results.

weird-eye-issueabout 2 hours ago
This is where password managers are useful because they would refuse to fill in login information since the domain doesn't match
StableAlkyneabout 1 hour ago
I use keepass (FOSS under GPL, fully offline).

It does not detect domains.

graemep36 minutes ago
KeepassXC browser integration will do that.
vel0cityabout 2 hours ago
"Dang, this site isn't working right with the password manager's detection. Guess I just gotta paste the password in again..."

Meanwhile U2F/Passkeys can't possibly be abused like this.

tjoffabout 2 hours ago
Yeah but the downsides of passkeys make them so much worse anyway.
bonoboTPabout 2 hours ago
Exactly. All these ideals work in theory but then in reality banks are also incompetent and will use all kinds of domains.

Same with meta and Google where they often direct you to domains that aren't under their main one and it's actually legit, but there's no way to know. It's impossible to teach family members to pay attention if it's really that domain because it's often legit not that domain.

spicyusernameabout 1 hour ago

    at least not Google
Is one giant mega-corp better than any other?

You're going to have a hard time convincing me the answer is yes.

abc123abc123about 1 hour ago
Why would you go to your bank by first searching for it? Sounds very insecure to me. I type my banks url directly instead, or if that gets tedious, store it as a bookmark.

I know several people who search for important sites, click uncritically on links, and get scammed. This is not so good.

chrisweeklyabout 1 hour ago
speaking only to search quality: try Kagi.
jslakro5 minutes ago
Any open source tool to scan a github repo before download/install it locally? I'm thinking of semgrep or socket.dev but I wonder if there's a better option
Teknomadix9 minutes ago
>The zip archive contains 4 files: Application.cmd or Launcher.cmd loader.exe or luajit.exe or another_name.exe random_name.cso or random_name.txt lua51.dll If you submit a link to the archive to VirusTotal, it will find 0 viruses. If you submit the zip file itself, it will detect a Trojan inside it.

MS Windows

lookeeyabout 2 hours ago
It happened a few times to me that I'd find some very well constructed scam scheme (cryptocurrency washing systems, web platform/phishing scams), then I'd research deeper into it to see how it worked, just to ultimately feel powerless not knowing what to do with the information.
RoadieRoller22 minutes ago
> Why do they delete a commit and push a new one every few hours?

May be to make it appear on the top of the "Last Updated" repositories in case someone searches for the repo or a keyword. So instead of the author's actual repo, the users endup cloning the trojan infected one.

rkozik1989about 2 hours ago
People need to do their due diligence when including open-source software and packages not just when they first use them but anytime you have a need to upgrade them. I highly doubt I'm the first one to think of this, but there really aught to be tool or comprehensive set of tools that routinely scan open-source software and packages for potentially malicious code and alert users of the problem(s).
junonabout 2 hours ago
There are. Socket, Aikido, and a number of others do this all the time.
aweiherabout 1 hour ago
Step-Security, Wiz ..
mmscabout 2 hours ago
> Another month later, GitHub support sent me an email saying that they had removed these repositories.

I recently discovered a campaign where somebody was forking very small but useful codebases, and replacing the distributable with some malware, and making the repository have better SEO with changes to the README. My case was a simple macOS application that could be used to control some Phillips LED light strip.

I reported it to GitHub and it was removed within 24 hours.

I discovered another repository like this, and they still haven't replied since (one month).

No clue how their malware reports work. I'm surprised they don't partner with some antivirus company to at least scan "releases" for malware (not repositories themselves)

mrbluecoat16 minutes ago
> I'm surprised they don't partner with some antivirus company to at least scan "releases" for malware

...like Windows Defender? Oh, the irony :D

astronodevabout 3 hours ago
I uploaded several of these virus-infected archives to VirusTotal. In each archive, under the “Network Communication” section, the virus makes requests to three resources: a GET request to a website to retrieve IP information, a POST request to a Polygon RPC node (drpc), and a POST request to what appears to be the virus creator’s server. I can only assume that the scheme is designed to steal cryptocurrency.
Advertisement
axusabout 2 hours ago
It will feel very spooky when they stop updating because of this essay .
siva7about 1 hour ago
Hi Claude fable, why u not protecting me from malware? Am i not american enough? Not rich enough? Yieks..
schedpilotabout 1 hour ago
damn 10k ? thats a lot, how did you get them ?
theorchidabout 1 hour ago
Hmm. Using a script. That's explained in the article)
fastcrwabout 2 hours ago
are there any ci/cd that controls them?
pydryabout 2 hours ago
Microsoft: and the one thing we absolutely refuse to use AI for is to flag this kind of bullshit to protect users, because it would violate the rule of "don't do anything actually useful with it".