Hacking News
-
At least they didn’t say sofiscated nation-state actor.
-
-
@HardwareGeek linked an article in Hacking News that said:
There are instances where this vulnerability can be exploited without the need to compromise a server in advance.
One such case is the use of SSH keys for signing Git commits. A common setup involves using Pageant, the ssh-agent of PuTTY, locally and forwarding the agent to a development host.
Here, you configure Git to use OpenSSH to sign Git commits with the SSH key provided by Pageant. The signature is then generated by Pageant, making it susceptible to private key recovery.
Who in their right mind does that‽
Git commits should be signed by keys that are part of some public key infrastructure, but SSH doesn't have any method of signing certificates or even certificates at all. And while it uses the same algorithms as PGP/GPG or X.509, there is no sane reason to actually use the same key with it.
On the other hand
Collecting signatures from an SSH server is not as critical as it would mean the server itself is already compromised, and thus, the threat actor has broad access to the operating system.
Yes, it is, because the normal use-case is that the user has one key and uses it to access all systems they administer, so if one server is compromised, stealing the keys allows getting to those other systems.
Either way, the attack affects
NIST P-521 curve
Has anybody already started using that? I've been using the smaller ed25519 curve for over a decade, but still have to have an RSA key for quite a few systems that don't support it.
Also it is funny that the exploit affects the longer key while the shorter ones remain safe.
-
@Bulb Git on Windows is a generally unmitigated shitshow.
-
@Arantor said in Hacking News:
@Bulb
Git onWindows is a generally unmitigated shitshow.But that's a different thread.
-
@HardwareGeek More than only one.
-
@Arantor said in Hacking News:
@Bulb Git on Windows is a generally unmitigated shitshow.
Which has exactly nothing to do with the issue at hand, because the standard install of git uses openssh, not putty, for transport, and does not even offer an option to sign anything with ssh (only with gpg).
-
@Bulb said in Hacking News:
@Arantor said in Hacking News:
@Bulb Git on Windows is a generally unmitigated shitshow.
Which has exactly nothing to do with the issue at hand, because the standard install of git uses openssh, not putty, for transport, and does not even offer an option to sign anything with ssh (only with gpg).
Using HTTPS for transport is also pretty common.
-
@dkf It is completely irrelevant that it can also be using a non-ssh transport, the point is it is using a different implementation of ssh transport than the one affected by the security advisory.
-
@Bulb said in Hacking News:
SSH doesn't have any method of signing certificates or even certificates at all.
it is (or at least openssh does). The first duck hit for signing ssh key gave me this hashicorp link, but we are using it also in our environment (without hashicorp)
-
@robo2 Hm, TIL, never seen anybody actually use that.
-
@Bulb said in Hacking News:
@HardwareGeek linked an [article] in Hacking News that said:
There are instances where this vulnerability can be exploited without the need to compromise a server in advance.
One such case is the use of SSH keys for signing Git commits. A common setup involves using Pageant, the ssh-agent of PuTTY, locally and forwarding the agent to a development host.
Here, you configure Git to use OpenSSH to sign Git commits with the SSH key provided by Pageant. The signature is then generated by Pageant, making it susceptible to private key recovery.
Who in their right mind does that‽
Git commits should be signed by keys that are part of some public key infrastructure, but SSH doesn't have any method of signing certificates or even certificates at all.
It does. SSH certs are little known although they have existed for a decade or so. (Ed )
Although it doesn't sound like they were being used in this scenario.NIST P-521 curve
Has anybody already started using that? I've been using the smaller ed25519 curve for over a decade, but still have to have an RSA key for quite a few systems that don't support it.
I see no reason to switch. Supposedly the algorithm is faster (which doesn't matter at all in SSH), but DJB & Tanja Lange say it's crap and quite a few things coming out of NIST turned out to be smelly so I would prefer not to.
-
@LaoC said in Hacking News:
I see no reason to switch. Supposedly the algorithm is faster (which doesn't matter at all in SSH), but DJB & Tanja Lange say it's crap and quite a few things coming out of NIST turned out to be smelly so I would prefer not to.
The https://safecurves.cr.yp.to/ (by DJB & Lange) lists the NIST P-256 and P-384 as manipulatable, because they include an unexplained pseudo-random constant, but it does not list the P-521. It does list “E-521”, which someone said is the same curve here, but https://neuromancer.sk/ doesn't seem to agree (P-521, E-521).
-
By "using" the Github comments feature, you can deposit malware which looks like "official" packages of trusted companies...
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/gitlab-affected-by-github-style-cdn-flaw-allowing-malware-hosting/
-
Effing brillant: exploiting a software bug with paper coupons, to the tune of a couple M$.
{{ .Terminator.EasyMoneyMeme }}
-
@LaoC's article said in Hacking News:
Known abusers of the TICO machines have been charged, and one of those set to face the courts is accused of association with a criminal group.
I know this is the other side of the "You can't 'Ackchyually' your way out of court" coin, but it seems kind of ridiculous. How is it their fault that the machines give out too much money? What if instead the slot machines had a bug so that you could actually win instead of "the house always wins". Would it then be criminal to play them?
-
@topspin said in Hacking News:
How is it their fault that the machines give out too much money?
They could redeem the same ticket twice. It must have been rather obvious to them that they were not supposed to do that, and that they were not entitled to that money, but they still took it. That's stealing, just like it's stealing to walk through someone's wide open front door and take the money lying on the kitchen counter.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Hacking News:
That's stealing, just like it's stealing to walk through someone's wide open front door and take the money lying on the kitchen counter.
Yeah, kinda.
It's more like I bring you a cake, you give me money in return but it's twice as much as you said you'd give me. The difference is that the machine / you hand me the money, so there's an argument to be made for you agreeing on the thing you are doing.It must have been rather obvious to them that they were not supposed to do that.
And if it's obvious that you're not supposed to win at slot machines, but (consistently, due to a bug) still do? Is that stealing?
-
@topspin said in Hacking News:
And if it's obvious that you're not supposed to win at slot machines, but (consistently, due to a bug) still do? Is that stealing?
You lose on average, at any snapshot in time you can be winning. So no as a user of the slot machine I would have no idea if I was in a winning streak or the slot machine was broken.
-
@topspin said in Hacking News:
@ixvedeusi said in Hacking News:
That's stealing, just like it's stealing to walk through someone's wide open front door and take the money lying on the kitchen counter.
Yeah, kinda.
It's more like I bring you a cake, you give me money in return but it's twice as much as you said you'd give me. The difference is that the machine / you hand me the money, so there's an argument to be made for you agreeing on the thing you are doing.It must have been rather obvious to them that they were not supposed to do that.
And if it's obvious that you're not supposed to win at slot machines, but (consistently, due to a bug) still do? Is that stealing?
The better analogy here would be:
- You brought me a cake last week, and I gave you a promise to pay for the cake.
- You redeemed the promise to pay the day after, and I didn't take the promise to pay slip but gave you the money
- You forgot you had redeemed the promise to pay two days after, so when you found the slip again, you came and redeemed the promise to pay, and I didn't take the promise to pay slip or otherwise question whether I'd paid it before
- After you got the money again, you realized I'd paid you twice and wasn't monitoring whether I've paid you at all, so now you started re-redeeming the promise to pay on a daily basis
Edit because I hit enter before completing my thought: the point of criminality is step 4.
-
Found a gem in Microsoft documentation:
Azure Storage relies on Windows implementation of SSL that is not based on OpenSSL and therefore is not exposed to OpenSSL related vulnerabilities.
-
Yes, you don't want all those open-source vulnerabilities in your crypto stack. Serious companies insist on only closed-source, proprietary vulnerabilities that have been designed by actual proper intelligence agencies.
-
-
@Zerosquare Anyways, Microsoft is technically correct !
-
-
-
@Dragoon said in Hacking News:
@topspin said in Hacking News:
And if it's obvious that you're not supposed to win at slot machines, but (consistently, due to a bug) still do? Is that stealing?
You lose on average, at any snapshot in time you can be winning. So no as a user of the slot machine I would have no idea if I was in a winning streak or the slot machine was broken.
And they are generally programmed to work this way. Even to a point of periodically letting you win so you keep putting money in the machine.
-
Depends where you are. In some jurisdictions, the machines are programmed/manufactured such that each spin is (for all practical purposes) independent of previous ones, so there’s no such thing as a streak. If a streak happens, technically you’re either very lucky or the machine is faulty and should be removed from service and corrected.
Others, on the other hand (especially here in the UK) have thresholds for taking in and paying out, such that several marks can put money in and at some point the machine will go “shit I haven’t paid out in too long” and will pay out quite a bit in a hurry to get back to its current thresholds.