Debian apt security update (man-in-the-middle)

(lists.debian.org)

74 points | by SG- 2 hours ago

10 comments

  • justicz 59 minutes ago
    I found this! I posted a semi-click-bait-ey tweet about it here [0], I think it’s important for people know how easy these bugs are to find now. It’s becoming borderline irresponsible not to audit your internet-facing code with modern AI tools.

    [0] https://x.com/just1cz/status/2118009777922228361

    • sczi 39 minutes ago
      Nice work! A similar vulnerability in 2019 also found by you included the recommendation to update with:

        apt -o Acquire::http::AllowRedirect=false update
        apt -o Acquire::http::AllowRedirect=false upgrade
      
      Since this also involves redirects, would that protect users while updating apt for this one also?
    • justicz 57 minutes ago
      Speaking of which… if any of y’all work on security at OpenAI I have some questions for you about Daybreak! Please email me
  • hollow-moe 22 minutes ago
    But how do I update apt if apt is untrustable until fixed ? Good ol' .deb scp'd in dpkg'd.
  • thewisenerd 1 hour ago
  • SoftTalker 52 minutes ago
    How would an attacker inject a redirect into an apt package download?
    • mikepurvis 45 minutes ago
      MITM on the network, I guess like DNS takeover or the like.

      So you pass through the upstream headers but then simulate a failure/resume and supply different contents for the resumed download.

      • SoftTalker 39 minutes ago
        So apt doesn't verify signatures on what is actually downloaded?
        • dinosaurdynasty 30 minutes ago
          > Improper file handling when resuming an HTTP download allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to replace a package after verification

          from the OP

          APT can use HTTPS, but often doesn't, making a MITM attack easier (also the idea for a long time has been signatures are enough, and/or TLS certs used to be a lot harder to get, but at this point you should really be using both).

          • SoftTalker 8 minutes ago
            Still doesn't make sense to me. So package A is downloaded, signature verified, then package B is downloaded, but somehow the package A file is replaced? Is it something like that?
    • jxie2004 44 minutes ago
      [flagged]
  • ChrisArchitect 21 minutes ago
  • 8organicbits 2 hours ago
    I feel like they should release manual update instructions since the update mechanism is vulnerable. Although I see my systems already updated via unattended upgrades.

    edit: On lobste.rs I see a recommendation for `apt download`: https://lobste.rs/s/h7bvma/man_middle_arbitrary_code_executi...

  • kitehosting 26 minutes ago
    [flagged]
  • sick_of_slop 32 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • opengrass 1 hour ago
    [flagged]
    • klez 1 hour ago
      I'm pretty sure apt is written in C++. Am I remembering wrong?
      • Palomides 1 hour ago
        parts of apt are being redone in rust, but anyway this seems to be a logic bug (in c++ code)