“The exact technical mechanism remains under investigation, though the compromise occured at the hosting provider level rather than through vulnerabilities in Notepad++ code itself. Traffic from certain targeted users was selectively redirected to attacker-controlled served malicious update manifests.”
Fuckall they could really have done about it other than changing host providers, which they mentioned they already have as a result.
that’s a brutal hack. so they hacked the hosting update server, made it monitor incoming IPs, and then selectively uploaded a compromised backdoor update based on IP only to certain computers so it would go undetected longer?
it’s awful, but technically impressive that someone could remotely hack the server like that and set up such a complex system to target IPs… unless it was a state actor that compelled the server company to provide local access, in which case it’s less impressive.
It’s astounding this wasn’t done years sooner to be honest. I mean, signing software with keys is not something invented recently. Not doing so is akin to storing passwords in plain text.
I think they want to, but Microsoft has made it expensive for open source developers who do this as a hobby and not as a job to sign their software. I know not too long ago, this particular dev was asking its users to install a root certificate on their PC so that they wouldn’t have to deal with Microsofts method of signing software, but that kind of backfired on them.
Let’s Encrypt is a trusted, established alternative, it could replace Microsoft for long-lived software certificates.
Uh, no it could not.
First of all, the whole point of signing software is to ensure it comes from a reputable source. Let’s Encrypt signs certificates with an automated process that does no verification whatsoever of the identity of the person asking for a certificate. It would make the whole process completely pointless.
Second, Let’s Encrypt has stated themselves over a decade ago that they have no intention of doing this because it would render the whole system pointless.
The point of signing software is to ensure the software was not tampered from the publisher. Linux package managers solve this by comparing a gpg key from the publisher with the software’s. There is no need for a corporate giant to “vet” software.
No, because you wouldn’t be able to execute the updated exe without a valid signature. You would essentially brick the install with that method, and probably upset Microsoft’s security software in the process.
I meant the old .exe would check the signatures before initializing the official Windows way to update. Effectively have this run whenever you start the application:
main() {
if (update_available()) {
exe_path = download_update()
if (signature(exe_path) == SIGNATURE) {
install_update(exe_path)
restart()
} else {
put_up_a_warning_or_something()
delete(exe_path)
}
}
# Rest of the application# ...
}
The only thing I have no idea how to implement would be the install_update(path) function. But surely this is one way to install updates without signatures recognized by Microsoft, right?
And if for some reason you aren’t allowed to sign the .exe because this breaks something, then place an unsigned .exe in a signed zip folder.
I don’t know enough about Windows app development to answer this. Maybe it replaces the old .exe and the now replaced .exe is just continuing to run from RAM? Maybe there is some restarter.exe program in the same folder that does all the work. In any case, this depends far too much on the Windows update process and how to launch applications.
I just know when I used Windows applications in the past, they were able to restart themselves after updating somehow.
The answer to that question is honestly super complicated, and it has its own job title tbh. Managing code signing certificates can be really complex depending on the software.
“The exact technical mechanism remains under investigation, though the compromise occured at the hosting provider level rather than through vulnerabilities in Notepad++ code itself. Traffic from certain targeted users was selectively redirected to attacker-controlled served malicious update manifests.”
Fuckall they could really have done about it other than changing host providers, which they mentioned they already have as a result.
that’s a brutal hack. so they hacked the hosting update server, made it monitor incoming IPs, and then selectively uploaded a compromised backdoor update based on IP only to certain computers so it would go undetected longer?
it’s awful, but technically impressive that someone could remotely hack the server like that and set up such a complex system to target IPs… unless it was a state actor that compelled the server company to provide local access, in which case it’s less impressive.
Sign the updates before uploading them so they can’t be faked?
It’s astounding this wasn’t done years sooner to be honest. I mean, signing software with keys is not something invented recently. Not doing so is akin to storing passwords in plain text.
I think they want to, but Microsoft has made it expensive for open source developers who do this as a hobby and not as a job to sign their software. I know not too long ago, this particular dev was asking its users to install a root certificate on their PC so that they wouldn’t have to deal with Microsofts method of signing software, but that kind of backfired on them.
Let’s Encrypt is a trusted, established alternative, it could replace Microsoft for long-lived software certificates.
Or tarnish its name associating it with malware and bad actors, who knows?
Uh, no it could not.
First of all, the whole point of signing software is to ensure it comes from a reputable source. Let’s Encrypt signs certificates with an automated process that does no verification whatsoever of the identity of the person asking for a certificate. It would make the whole process completely pointless.
Second, Let’s Encrypt has stated themselves over a decade ago that they have no intention of doing this because it would render the whole system pointless.
The point of signing software is to ensure the software was not tampered from the publisher. Linux package managers solve this by comparing a gpg key from the publisher with the software’s. There is no need for a corporate giant to “vet” software.
Yes, but from what I understand this refers to the automatic update functionality and not Microsoft’s own .exe signature verification thing.
Couldn’t you do it like this:
That should work, shouldn’t it?
No, because you wouldn’t be able to execute the updated exe without a valid signature. You would essentially brick the install with that method, and probably upset Microsoft’s security software in the process.
I meant the old .exe would check the signatures before initializing the official Windows way to update. Effectively have this run whenever you start the application:
main() { if (update_available()) { exe_path = download_update() if (signature(exe_path) == SIGNATURE) { install_update(exe_path) restart() } else { put_up_a_warning_or_something() delete(exe_path) } } # Rest of the application # ... }The only thing I have no idea how to implement would be the
install_update(path)function. But surely this is one way to install updates without signatures recognized by Microsoft, right?And if for some reason you aren’t allowed to sign the .exe because this breaks something, then place an unsigned .exe in a signed zip folder.
After you install the update, which exe will you execute after the app restarts?
I don’t know enough about Windows app development to answer this. Maybe it replaces the old .exe and the now replaced .exe is just continuing to run from RAM? Maybe there is some restarter.exe program in the same folder that does all the work. In any case, this depends far too much on the Windows update process and how to launch applications.
I just know when I used Windows applications in the past, they were able to restart themselves after updating somehow.
How are they doing it now, then?
The answer to that question is honestly super complicated, and it has its own job title tbh. Managing code signing certificates can be really complex depending on the software.
This gist kinda covers the basics
https://gist.github.com/MangaD/e8f67fb39a35abdbf4ad26711c5957cc
Cryptography is hard and programmers are notoriously really really really bad at it.