14 ms·
Well, it's a POC against a re-keyed version of the exploit; a POC against the original version would require the attacker's private key, which is undisclosed.
by rst 3y ago
Well, it's a POC against a re-keyed version of the exploit; a POC against the original version would require the attacker's private key, which is undisclosed.
- miduil 3y agoIt's a POC nevertheless, it's a complete implementation of the RCE minus obviously the private key.
- nindalf 3y agoIt doesn't matter. The people with the private key already knew all of this because they implemented it. The script kiddies without the private key can't do anything without it. A POC doesn't help them in any way. A way to check if servers are vulnerable is probably by querying the package manager for the installed version of xz. Not very sophisticated, but it'll work.
- miduil 3y ago> It doesn't matter. To understand the exact behavior and extend of the backdoor, this does matter. An end to end proof of how it works is exactly what was needed. > A way to check if servers are vulnerable is probably by querying the package manager Yes, this has been know since the initial report + later discovering what exact strings are present for the payload. https://github.com/Neo23x0/signature-base/blob/master/yara/bkdr_xz_util_cve_2024_3094.yar https://github.com/Neo23x0/signature-base/blob/master/yara/b... > Not very sophisticated, but it'll work. Unfortunately, we live in a world with closed-servers and appliances - being able as a customer or pen tester rule out certain class of security issues without having the source/insights available is usually desirable.
- nindalf 3y ago> we live in a world with closed-servers and appliances Yeah but these servers and appliances aren't running Debian unstable are they? I'd understand if it affected LTS versions of distros, but these were people living on the bleeding edge anyway. Folks managing such servers are going to be fine running `apt-get update`. We got lucky with this one, tbh.
- doakes 3y agoAre you saying POCs are pointless unless a script kiddie can use it?
- nindalf 3y agoThe context of the conversation, which you seem to have missed, is that now that we have a POC, we need a way to check for vulnerable servers. The link being that a POC makes it easier for script kiddies to use it, meaning we're in a race against them. But we aren't, because only one group in the whole world can use this exploit.
- miduil 3y ago> is that now that we have a POC, we need a way to check for vulnerable servers. You misunderstand me, the "need to check for vulnerable servers" has nothing to do with the PoC in itself. You want to know whether you're vulnerable against this mysterious unknown attacker that went through the all the hoops for a sophisticated supply chain attack. I never said that we need a way to detect it because there is a POC out, at least I didn't meant to imply that either. > script kiddies to use it, meaning we're in a race against them This is something you and the other person were suddenly coming up with, never said this in first place.
- misswaterfairy 3y agoCould the provided honeypot print out keys used in successful and unsuccessful attempts?
- bheadmaster 3y agoI don't think any (sane) client would sent its private key on login. Private key only serves as a "solver" of a puzzle created using the public key.