62 pointsby theorchid2 hours ago11 comments
  • jp000119 minutes ago
    I uploaded a sample found here (https://github.com/alexct142010-cell/McBackuper ) to Genus Codes (need an account): https://genuscodes.com/results/7ad4b911d05a12f91ab27ba3baa35... Seems to be related to the disco trojan family, by way of normalized function matching at 50% to malicious file https://genuscodes.com/results/eddbc29db4677e00c1a901aadbadb... and a normalized 50% match to https://genuscodes.com/results/fdb6cff68a2a8c08779d64a7cf61d...

    Virustotal link: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/fdb6cff68a2a8c08779d64a7...

  • StableAlkyne7 minutes ago
    > I typed the project name into Google, and my repository appeared in the results. I entered the same query into Bing, and someone else’s repository appeared in the results

    Side story, this kind of thing is what made me stop using Bing.

    I had been using it as the default for searches (it sucks, but it's at least not Google), until I landed on a phishing page for my bank (I haven't committed it to memory yet). The page was a near perfect copy, and I would easily have gotten pwnd by it if they didn't have a modal asking me to run some code in my terminal for "security activation" that made me go "that's a little odd... Is this the right address OH SHIT that's a .ru domain"

    I never see Google return phishing pages or typo squatters in the first page. Bing constantly returns that stuff in the first several results.

    • weird-eye-issue2 minutes ago
      This is where password managers are useful because they would refuse to fill in login information since the domain doesn't match
  • emodendroket16 minutes ago
    I have to say, the principle that open-source software can't do anything nefarious because the source is open just hasn't held up for a lot of reasons -- including that nobody has the time to inspect the code, let alone ensure that it matches the binaries; and also that GitHub has become a distribution hub for software used by lots of people with no ability or interest in auditing the software they use.
    • embedding-shape12 minutes ago
      > the principle that open-source software can't do anything nefarious because the source is open just hasn't held up for a lot of reasons

      You've been living on such a principle? That sounds insane, why would something not be nefarious just because you can read the code?

      The way I was "raised" by FOSS greybeards screaming at me through web forums, was that any software available on 3rd party websites anyone can upload anything to, will be filled with viruses and malware, and this was early 2000s. Surely people still advocate for this mindset today, when it's even more likely?

      • emodendroket10 minutes ago
        No, I've not been "living on" such a principle but it was a big claim for "the bazaar."
        • embedding-shape8 minutes ago
          Aha, wasn't that argument more about that closed source software is more likely to hide stuff you don't agree with, than FOSS? Not necessarily that FOSS won't have any viruses or malware, but it's at least less likely. That was my take away, but long time ago I read the book admittedly, I might misremember or transformed it automagically over time.
      • tuwtuwtuwtuw7 minutes ago
        > You've been living on such a principle?

        I have not, but in case you missed it, this principle has been used by open source proponents for decades. I'm an open source developer myself, but always found it odd.

  • rkozik198912 minutes ago
    People need to do their due diligence when including open-source software and packages not just when they first use them but anytime you have a need to upgrade them. I highly doubt I'm the first one to think of this, but there really aught to be tool or comprehensive set of tools that routinely scan open-source software and packages for potentially malicious code and alert users of the problem(s).
    • junon8 minutes ago
      There are. Socket, Aikido, and a number of others do this all the time.
  • lookeey19 minutes ago
    It happened a few times to me that I'd find some very well constructed scam scheme (cryptocurrency washing systems, web platform/phishing scams), then I'd research deeper into it to see how it worked, just to ultimately feel powerless not knowing what to do with the information.
  • axus43 minutes ago
    It will feel very spooky when they stop updating because of this essay .
  • mmsc23 minutes ago
    > Another month later, GitHub support sent me an email saying that they had removed these repositories.

    I recently discovered a campaign where somebody was forking very small but useful codebases, and replacing the distributable with some malware, and making the repository have better SEO with changes to the README. My case was a simple macOS application that could be used to control some Phillips LED light strip.

    I reported it to GitHub and it was removed within 24 hours.

    I discovered another repository like this, and they still haven't replied since (one month).

    No clue how their malware reports work. I'm surprised they don't partner with some antivirus company to at least scan "releases" for malware (not repositories themselves)

  • astronodev2 hours ago
    I uploaded several of these virus-infected archives to VirusTotal. In each archive, under the “Network Communication” section, the virus makes requests to three resources: a GET request to a website to retrieve IP information, a POST request to a Polygon RPC node (drpc), and a POST request to what appears to be the virus creator’s server. I can only assume that the scheme is designed to steal cryptocurrency.
  • fastcrw12 minutes ago
    are there any ci/cd that controls them?
  • cyber-anderson9 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • 2 hours ago
    undefined