2 ms·
> I'm very down on connecting directly through SSH without network access. The xz situation has validated this opinion. Did it? At the point an attacker has re
by delusional 3y ago
> I'm very down on connecting directly through SSH without network access. The xz situation has validated this opinion.
Did it? At the point an attacker has remote code execution, couldn't they just as easily pivot into an outgoing connection to some command and control server? I don't see how some intermediary access point would have alleviated this problem. If the call is coming from inside the house, the gig is already up.
- deepbreath 3y ago> At the point an attacker has remote code execution The attacker doesn't have remote code execution in the xz case unless they can speak to your port 22. Port knocking prevents them from doing so, provided they don't know how to knock.
- delusional 3y agoAssuming they have injected code into the sshd executable, couldn't that code just do the exploit without a connection? What I'm saying is that the structure of this payload is the way it is because sshd is accessible. Had it not been accessible, the payload just wouldn't have required an external connection.
- GabeIsko 3y agoI mean, this is the twisting logic. xy hack put's a backdoor in sshd. You need to access sshd port to go through the back door and get RCE. Hacker could have put something even more nefarious that could phone home somewhere. We would like to think that would have been a little easier to spot, but who knows. To me, that is what makes this hack so noteworthy. Hacker got access, and then kept playing the long game. Very spooky. And yes, someone capable of this probably has a plan for gaining network access if they had a target in mind. Even with best security practice, this rabbit hole goes pretty deep.