3 ms·
I have not seen a statement from Nullbulge so it's not appropriate to say that they took over the repo. The author of the repo is claiming that their repo is h
by belladoreai 2y ago
I have not seen a statement from Nullbulge so it's not appropriate to say that they took over the repo.
The author of the repo is claiming that their repo is hacked, but this is an obvious lie, because their very first GitHub commit is the one where they push the malware. Nobody would hack an empty GitHub account.
I don't know if the author of the repo is lying when they say that Nullbulge is behind the attack (perhaps the author is part of Nullbulge, perhaps not).
- millzlane 2y agoI wouldn't be so sure no one would hack an idle account. I had my Spotify account taken before I even used it. I think in my case they used my account to pump up other lesser known artists.
- belladoreai 2y agoOkay, sure. But if we have an account which has never had any legitimate activity on it ever - an account that has only ever been used to push malware - then I don't know if it matters much who is the "rightful owner" of the account. Things would be different if the GitHub account had some legitimate activity before the "hack".
- millzlane 2y agoI agree it doesn't matter much. Could be a noob mistake by the account owner and this is damage control.
- janoc 2y agoThere was also an actively exploited XSS vulnerability on Github in the recent days. Doesn't mean that this guy was not a malicious actor, only that one shouldn't be so quick to cast stones without evidence.
- belladoreai 2y agoThe person who created the custom node is the same person who "hacked" it. Whether or not the account is technically owned by some unrelated civilian is not important, because there is no other activity on the account.