5 ms·

I suppose a bad actor could log keystrokes or terminal output and phone home. I can't think of anything more ring 0 than one's terminal. If you're especially ev

I suppose a bad actor could log keystrokes or terminal output and phone home. I can't think of anything more ring 0 than one's terminal. If you're especially evil you could register a domain that looks like an apt repo url and drop your payload during updates, so anybody inspecting traffic would probably miss it.

tadfisher 5y ago
I feel like the shell itself would be a much more lucrative target.
- reilly3000 5y ago
  As in being able to execute arbitrary commands (silently)?
  - tadfisher 5y ago
    Yes, and it could "keylog" over remote connections as well.
    - pama 5y ago
      Very few admins would switch from bash (possibly zsh), and bash has tons of eyes looking over its codebase. Terminals are interchangeable and could direct the shell in ways that can be invisible to the user.
      - tadfisher 5y ago
        All the security review in the world won't stop a vulnerability elsewhere from replacing `sudo` with an alias in your `.bash_profile`.
        pama 5y ago
        Agreed. A malicious terminal could do all that and more. And it won’t have to edit your bashrc, though it certainly could.