Eli Schwartz wrote: > On 3/29/24 11:07 PM, Eddie Chapman wrote: > >> Given what we've learnt in the last 24hrs about xz utilities, you could >> forgive a paranoid person for seriously considering getting rid >> entirely of them from their systems, especially since there are suitable >> alternatives available. Some might say that's a bit extreme, xz-utils >> will get a thorough audit and it will all be fine. But when a >> malicious actor has been a key maintainer of something as complex as a >> decompression utility for years, I'm not sure I could ever trust that >> codebase again. Maybe a complete rewrite will emerge, but I'm personally >> unwilling to continue using xz utils in the meantime for uncompressing >> anything on my systems, even if it is done by an unprivileged process. > > > It suffices to downgrade to the version of xz before a social > engineering attack by a malicious actor to gain maintainership of the xz > project. > > Have you been linked to this yet? > https://www.mail-archive.com/xz-devel@tukaani.org/msg00571.html > > -- > Eli Schwartz >
Yes I saw that yesterday. It only increased my level of concern about the project ten-fold rather than decreased it, particularly because of "he has been helping a lot off-list and is practically a co-maintainer already". It's not possible to just downgrade to before the bad actor's commits and then feel fine about things because they have been heavily involved offline even before commit access. We'll never know how much and when because I also cannot trust what the apparently innocent maintainer (who is most likely a victim here as well) might say about that now. Not because of anything about them (I don't know them or anything about them), just because of what has happened, there is too much of an incentive for that person to now downplay the involvement of the bad actor. I'm sorry if that may seem harsh but, in my view, this situation is so severe it warrants it. The world is facing threats from very sophisticated and capable bad actors, mostly criminal organisations. If people here want to run systems that are actually secure and also have other people trust their stewardship, then things need to be taken seriously and high standards need to be maintained. Especially where it is a tool that is not super essential (it has just become heavily entrenched) and where there are great alternatives, there should be no hesitancy to jettison a project that has been infiltrated to such an extent as we have seen here (this is far beyond just some devs workstation got compromised and there was a few bad commits made it into the repo). At the moment there is far too much of a cavalier attitude about the whole thing being shown by too many, including here I'm sad to see.
