4 ms·
If everyone avoids using packages released within the last 7 days, malicious code is more likely to remain dormant for 7 days.
by XYen0n 6mo ago
If everyone avoids using packages released within the last 7 days, malicious code is more likely to remain dormant for 7 days.
- DimmieMan 6mo agoThey’re usually picked up by scanners by then.
- cozzyd 6mo agothat's why people are telling others to use 7 days but using 8 days themselves :)
- porridgeraisin 6mo agoGenius
- wongarsu 6mo agobrb, switching everything to 9 days
- johnisgood 6mo agoThat is 3D chess level type shit. xD
- MetaWhirledPeas 6mo agoYou don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than the other guy.
- otterley 6mo agoWhat do you base that on? Threat researchers (and their automated agents) will still keep analyzing new releases as soon as they’re published.
- mike_hearn 6mo agoTheir analysis was triggered by open source projects upgrading en-masse and revealing a new anomalous endpoint, so, it does require some pioneers to take the arrows. They didn't spot the problem entirely via static analysis, although with hindsight they could have done (missing GitHub attestation).
- narrator 6mo agoA security company could set up a honeypot machine that installs new releases of everything automatically and have a separate machine scan its network traffic for suspicious outbound connections.
- mike_hearn 6mo agoThe problem is what counts as suspicious. StepSecurity are quite clear in their post that they decide what counts as anomalous by comparing lots of open source runs against prior data, so they can't figure it out on their own.
- staticassertion 6mo ago> What do you base that on? The entire history of malware lol
- otterley 6mo agoCan you elaborate? Why do you believe that motivated threat hunters won’t continue to analyze and find threats in new versions of open source software in the first week after release?
- staticassertion 6mo agoAttackers going "low and slow" when they know they're being monitored is just standard practice. > Why do you believe that motivated threat hunters won’t continue to analyze and find threats in new versions of open source software in the first week after release? I'm sure they will, but attackers will adapt. And I'm really unconvinced that these delays are really going to help in the real world. Imagine you rely on `popular-dependency` and it gets compromised. You have a cooldown, but I, the attacker, issue "CVE-1234" for `popular-dependency`. If you're at a company you now likely have a compliance obligation to patch that CVE within a strict timeline. I can very, very easily pressure you into this sort of thing. I'm just unconvinced by the whole idea. It's fine, more time is nice, but it's not a good solution imo.
- jmward01 6mo agoI suspect most packages will keep a mix of people at 7 days and those with no limit. That being said, adding jitter by default would be good to these features.
- Barbing 6mo ago>adding jitter by default would be good This became evident, what, perhaps a few years ago? Probably since childhood for some users here but just wondering what the holdup is. Lots of bad press could be avoided, or at least a little.
- bakugo 6mo ago> If everyone avoids using packages released within the last 7 days Which will never even come close to happening, unless npm decides to make it the default, which they won't.
- Aurornis 6mo agoMost people won’t. 7 days gives ample time for security scanning, too.
- 3abiton 6mo agoThis highly depends on the detection mechanism.
- shreyssh 6mo ago[flagged]
- sersi 6mo agoBut wouldn't the type of people that notifes anomalous network activity be exactly the type of people who add a 7 day delay because they're security conscious?
- DrewADesign 6mo agoAnd I’ll bet a chunk of already-compromised vibe coders are feeling really on-top-of-shit because they just put that in their config, locking in that compromised version for a week.
- shreyssh 6mo ago[flagged]
- 131hn 6mo ago[dead]