The usual far more advanced malware than typical.
If you download and install untrusted code extensions, you’re screwed. Not like it’s rocket-science.
its kind of crazy how much I used to use the AUR, Was just randomly running randoms peoples scripts to install packages.
As we push more average Windows users to Linux, we need to be prepared for these users to download and run completely untrusted code.
Let’s be honest, how many current Linux users can trust any code that they run? There’s so many guides and instructions where you essentially copy/paste commands to install or configure something that it would be difficult for your average user to verify everything.
Probably a bunch. But having the ability doesn’t mean it’s used.
So who can you trust?
You can trust the software in your distro’s repositories (if you run a distro with well-maintained repositories). This is because, generally only well-known software gets packaged, the packager should be familiar with both the project and the code, and everything is rebuilt on the distro’s own infrastructure, to ensure that a given binary actually corresponds to the source.
It might still be possible for things to slip through, but it’s certainly much safer than random programs from online.
Yourself and the code you read and understand. So as long as you don’t use a system where this is possible (say 9Front and the like) you trust nothing and nobody, do careful backups and don’t go on a installation spree.
Depends on.
If you’re not using your PC for highly critical applications, go high-trust mode, and read news about those who become untrustworthy.
For critical applications, always check the usernames of the developers, use software trusted by others, etc.
Doesn’t say anything about the exploits. Just talks about a command and control suite.
It very clearly states that there were no exploits; the researchers stumbled across the undeployed C&C suite.
Oh I missed that line
“The VoidLink interface is localized for Chinese-affiliated operators, an indication that it likely originates from a Chinese-affiliated development environment.”
Baha, shit propaganda… Yes of cause it MUST be the Chinese ! I mean, it is impossible to fake an interface in another language, and we all know they are out to eat our children… sigh…
And who says ? This is not better than the shit corps amazon, micro***p, etc, that are now identifying foreign ‘threats’ for the US Fascist regime. Who gave private corps the right to examine AND convict other nations - without any transparency or oversight - on a whim from their Boss.
Get away from US *unts and their insane propaganda - ASAP !!
Yikers lmaooo. Maybe it could… but what if…OMG it’s true? you aren’t in control of your own thoughts it seems.
Did you get your $0.50 for that?
you know, you’re right. it couldn’t have been china or russia since it’s far more advanced than typical.
Certified .ml moment
The reasoning is curious: “This thing that China is credibly accused of doing is bad, therefore it cannot be China that’s doing it”.
Have you looked at the files? They were obviously generated in a Chinese-affiliated development environment, and the interface is designed for Chinese speakers. Which is exactly what they said. They very pointedly DIDN’T say that the malware was written by the Chinese government or one of their affiliates.
It’s also not in the same style as the stuff generated by the various Chinese APT groups, so is likely by some third party with Chinese connections. It’s a very methodical and thorough collection, but it wasn’t discovered via an attack — the researchers stumbled across the test environment. And that’s not something that’s likely to be the case with state actor-related groups.
With no indication that VoidLink is actively targeting machines, there’s no immediate action required by defenders, although they can obtain indicators of compromise from the Checkpoint blog post.
Don’t click on the article. It’s an AI regurgitated summary and internet rot site.
You’re welcome.
Did you just call Ars Technica an “internet rot site”?
Good way to make it obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about without saying you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Do I need to repeat myself or is your skull too thick? Try using those links in a year from now Ars is literally an Arse of the tech industry.
It might help if you actually said something rather than just trolling with below average bait (assuming you are trolling and not just intellectually battling a door stop for 3rd place)
Ok, noted. Troll identified and blocked.
“oh no someone said the truth but it hurts my feelings” blocked
Considering Dan isn’t a bot and responds to comments in the forum, I suspect you have no clue what you’re talking about.
The sourced research he cites is also not AI generated.
Ars technica is usually legit.
‘Usually’ being the operating word. It’s still a media Corp owned company part of Condé Nast, like Wired.
Yeah! AI bad!
Give him the updoots for saying it!
you’re AI on an internet rot site.
