• 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    the part that we’re arguing against isn’t that a microsoft signing key would have fixed the problem, it’s

    I didn’t say a Microsoft signing key is required. Im saying Microsoft requires that you go out and obtain a signed certificate that proves your identity as a developer.

    this update mechanism already exists: it’s the reason the hijack was possible. whatever the technical process behind the scenes is irrelevant… that is how it currently works; it’s not a “what if”

    The update mechanism was successful hijacked because integrity checks and authentication checks were not properly in place. Notepad++ even said that they moved hosting providers after this happened to them.

    Per https://www.rapid7.com/blog/post/tr-chrysalis-backdoor-dive-into-lotus-blossoms-toolkit/

    adding signing into that existing process without any 3rd party involvement is both free, and very very easy

    Can you point out an existing open source application that runs on Windows that only uses GPG signatures?

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      saying Microsoft requires that you go out and obtain a signed certificate that proves your identity as a developer

      clearly that’s not the case if this was exploitable… again, N++ has an auto update mechanism that they current use. if they used a microsoft signing key to sign a builds hash, this hijack would not be possible

      thus they have an update mechanism that works around microsoft signing… how is irrelevant. that is the current state of the software

      The update mechanism was successful hijacked because integrity checks and authentication checks were not properly in place

      that part we definitely agree on

      Notepad++ even said that they moved hosting providers after this happened to them

      side note: doesn’t remotely solve the problem… software updates should be immune to this to start with. it’s a problem that the hosting provider was compromised, but honestly we’re talking about a state sponsored hack targeting other states: almost no hosting provider would include this in their risk assessment, let alone shared hosting providers

      Can you point out an existing open source application that runs on Windows that only uses GPG signatures?

      again, that’s irrelevant… the concept that we’re talking about isn’t even specific to GPG. signing a hash using a private key is basic crypto, and GPG is a specific out of the box implementation

      if we remove microsoft signing as an option for whatever reason (which we have) then it’s still very possible, and very easy to implement signed updates into your own custom update mechanism

      • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        if we remove microsoft signing as an option for whatever reason (which we have) then it’s still very possible, and very easy to implement signed updates into your own custom update mechanism

        Im not convinced