3 ms·
This is so absurdly simple and yet devastating. Reading some of the comments on the Github issue you posted, this stood out (I don't know anything about lucky7c
by yid 11y ago
This is so absurdly simple and yet devastating. Reading some of the comments on the Github issue you posted, this stood out (I don't know anything about lucky7coin):
> So disappointing such code was not reviewed by Vern and team before running it on the server where damage could result.
So this code was actually put into production somewhere at some point -- wow. And cursory code review and compiling from source will do absolutely nothing here.
- mitchty 11y agoThis is why you dump out source after the preprocessor has had its way with it. gcc -E somethinghokey.c | less The only thing you could hope to do would be to look for PRIVMSG in the binary after compiling or to look at the file post preprocessor.
- pjc50 11y agoThat often expands into hundreds of thousands of lines though. It's more routine to go backdoor-hunting in binaries; you've given me the interesting idea of running `strings` on the binary and looking for anything that's not in the source.
- daurnimator 11y agoWatch out for running `strings` on untrusted input! See e.g. https://lcamtuf.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/psa-dont-run-strings-on-untrusted-files.html https://lcamtuf.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/psa-dont-run-strings...
- AstralStorm 11y agoInstead, do it like a pro and run it from a live CD or a throwaway VM. Any work on untrusted code should be done in an trust-reduced environment.
- kayamon 11y agoThis makes me sad. Literally the whole point of 'strings' is for poking around in unknown files, and they managed to break even that.