this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024
69 points (90.6% liked)

Linux

48153 readers
793 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
69
Is xz 5.6.1-3+ still dangerous? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

When the xz backdoor was discovered, I quickly uninstalled my Arch based setup with an infected version of the software and switched to a distro that shipped an older version (5.5 or 5.4 or something). I found an article which said that in 5.6.1-3 the backdoor was "fixed" by just not letting the malware part communicating with the vulnerable ssh related stuff and the actual malware is still there? (I didn't understand 80% of the technical terms and abbreviations in it ok?) Like it still sounds kinda dangerous to me, especially since many experts say that we don't know the other ways this malware can use (except for the ssh supply chain) yet. Is it true? Should I stick with the new distro for now or can I absolutely safely switch back and finally say that I use Arch btw again?

P. S. I do know that nothing is completely safe. Here I'm asking just about xz and libxzlk or whatever the name of that library is

EDIT: 69 upvotes. Nice

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 37 points 7 months ago (3 children)

To add to your point: The .deb ones are most likely safe, since it would only be on the unstable & experimental branches. Your garden variety production servers & personal computers should be fine. That is unless you're into some unusual setup like with playing around with the upcoming version, or for some reason are pulling your own xz build.

Can't speak for the .rpm tho.

[–] narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Fedora 39 and 40 (which is still in beta) uses xz 5.4. Fedora 41/rawhide (essentially the development branch) was affected it seems: https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-3094. CentOS Stream and RHEL have way more outdated packages than that, so they were never vulnerable to this backdoor.

openSUSE Tumbleweed (their rolling release) was affected: https://news.opensuse.org/2024/03/29/xz-backdoor/, Enterprise or Leap were unaffected.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

Ah, so the .rpm is pretty much like the .deb in that it's mostly unaffected. Speaking of, I think the .deb side may have VanillaOS affected since it's based on Debian's unstable branch.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I checked myself when this was first a thing. Debian 12 and Ubuntu 22.04 latest are on 5.4 and 5.2 respectively.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, all the current LTSes should be safe. Not sure about the Ubuntu 23.10, but the next LTS (24.04) is confirmed to be affected, hence the delay.

[–] caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not quite. It wasn't confirmed to be affected, but they can't prove that the build environment itself wasn't compromised, thus the rebuild.

As a result of CVE-2024-3094 332, Canonical made the decision to remove and rebuild all binary packages that had been built for Noble Numbat after the CVE-2024-3094 332 code was committed to xz-utils (February 26th), on newly provisioned build environments. This provides us with confidence that no binary in our builds could have been affected by this emerging threat.

https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/noble-numbat-beta-delayed-xz-liblzma-security-update/43827

And in the follow-up:

Was the vulnerable library ever in the Ubuntu 24.04 LTS (Noble Numbat) daily builds?

No.

https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/xz-liblzma-security-update-post-2/43801

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

Thanks for the correction!

[–] 30p87@feddit.de 4 points 7 months ago

"Safe" is a strong word to use. It's safe from that specific backdoor, and it seems like the known backdoor was the main goal of the attackers, but we don't know if they're playing 4D-Chess and have already implemented another backdoor which they're actively using.