some comments purportedly (i did not verify) from one of the maintainers:
>Dear All, I'm Sam and in I'm working with Franck on CPU-Z (I'm doing the validator). Franck is unfortunately OOO for a couple weeks. I'm just out of bed after worked on Memtest86+ for most the night, so I'm doing my best to check everything. As very first checks, the file on our server looks fine (https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/6c8faba4768754c3364e7c40...) and the server doesn't seems compromised. I'm investigating further... If anyone can tell me the exact link to the page where the malware was downloaded, that would help a lot
>Thank you. I found the biggest breach, restored the links and put everything in read-only until more investigation is done. Seems they waited Franck was off and I get to bad after working on Memtest86+ yesterday :-/
>The links have been compromised for a bit more than 6 hours between 09/04 and 10/04 GMT :-/
so, it appears that the cpuid website was compromised, with links leading to fake installers.
For what it's worth - I used to write CPU reviews a while back - I can vouch for both Sam and Franck. Franck is the guy behind CPUID and Sam is a close friend of his, who was known for working at Canard PC on top of his work on Memtest : https://x86.fr/about-me/
that is pretty cool!
when i say i didnt verify, i just mean that i ripped these quotes out of reddit, and did not check whether the reddit username that posted the comments is known to be an identity of Sam.
I didn't talk to him to verify, but at the very least it's his username (and the account is old enough at this point : https://www.reddit.com/user/Doc_TB/comments/), and his very Belgian english.
I know both are close and Sam handles his website, so since the links are fixed, I have zero doubt it's Sam here on reddit.
It's the third time that I've read something about availability notifications on discord and other chats getting abused for timed attacks in the last few weeks.
After my Wordpress site got hacked way back through an exploit in one of the WP files, I set up a cron job that compared the hash of the static files with expected hash, and would fire off an email if they differed.
The script lived above the web root, so they'd have to escape that to tamper with it, and was generated by another script.
Saved me a couple of times since, well worth the 15 minutes I spent on setting it up.
Back in the 1990s, there was a tool called ‘tripwire’ that checked key files against expected checksums.
As I recall, they recommended putting the expected values on a floppy disk and setting the ‘write protect’ tab, so the checksums couldn’t be changed.
tripwire was the orginal file integrity anti-virus/anti-tampering software from the security group (which turned into CERIAS) at Purdue led by Dr. Eugene "Spaff" Spafford.
Back in the 90s I fantasized about a hard drive bay with a physical write-protect switch on the cover plate.
In the mid-2000's I briefly worked for a company that did this at a firmware level ("write-blocked firmware") for USB drive adapters (IDE / SATA / whatever IDE variant laptops were using / etc). This was apparently very valuable for police and investigative services, so they could collect evidence, while being able to show that they did not tamper with the original drive.
Related: OpenBSD does this daily as part of running security(8) and its coverage can be expanded to include pretty much anything.
> Saved me a couple of times since
Wait, how often does your Wordpress site get successfully hacked like that?
It depends on how long you've been using WordPress, whether you use plugins, whether they're well-maintained or not, and so on.
Back around 2010, there were security vulnerabilities in WordPress or its popular plugins almost every month.
Keep in mind the first time was about 20 years ago.
One time the hosting provider got compromised, FTP server exploit IIRC, they ran a recursive search and replace from root directory of the server.
To our new generation of human shields willing to use software releases less than a month old, we salute your sacrifice.
Is there a tool out there that you can put software releases into and it will tell you how safe it is? I don't seem to be able to buy anything to do this. Crowdstrike and other modern antivirus may react to it once it's on a device, SAST / SCA tooling will help with CVEs, but there's nothing I can give my users where they can put in some piece of random software and get a reputation metric out the other side, is there?
> put in some piece of random software and get a reputation metric out the other side
Well, the enterprise version of ms defender will not only react to it if it does something "weird", but will specifically look at its "reputation" before it runs at all.
However, as another commenter pointed out, this generates a ton of false positives. Basically everything that's "brand new" is liable to trigger it. Think your freshly compiled hellow_world.exe. So, all in all, people may no longer pay attention to it and just click through all warnings.
Not exactly for software (although there is such section) but I use end of life [0] website. Besides time when certain software will be outdated it also tells you their release time.
You could put it into an LLM, since that's what we do for everything else nowadays.
Beside Virus Total, I am unsure https://www.virustotal.com/
Thanks, that's helpful
I’m not one to chase the new and shiny, but how do you know a nominally months-old software package isn’t a newly compromised version at the time you download it?
I hope you don't think that waiting a month will protect you. Malicious software can wait to be triggered months or years before anything malicious happens.
Thanks the web that produced css programmers who have been taught latest is greatest and shiny gets money.
"new, shiny" has never been a problem with CSS. Either browsers support some CSS attribute or they don't.
You're probably thinking about Javascript programmers.
> after the download my Windows Defender instantly detecting a virus.
> (because i am often working with programms which triggering the defender i just ignored that)
This again shows the unfortunate corrosive effect of false-positives. Probably impossible to solve while aggressively detecting viruses though.
But sorta possible to solve with source-based distribution and totally possible to solve with pure reproducible builds.
It's entirely possible to ship malware in source form... Just look at the numerous supply chain attacks. Nix is a cute project but entirely irrelevant here.
What systems have pure reproducible builds? Does Nix? Any others? From what I understand, it is a very difficult problem.
https://stal-ix.github.io/ and Guix, but the definitions of purity are different for them.
Yes, a very difficult problem, compilers must be pure functions with thin effectful wrappers.
If only there were a great Windows app store or a package manager to help with the impossible...
It's HWMonitor https://www.cpuid.com/softwares/hwmonitor.html and not HWInfo https://www.hwinfo.com/
So two programs from CPUID. I wonder if there are more affected.
Same topic on Reddit at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718830 @dang
Seems the installers hosted by them are fine. The links on the site have been changed to direct people towards Cloudflare R2 storage with various copies of malicious executables.
Looking forward to information down the line on how this came about.
Not exactly a supply chain compromise, as devs should be smart enough to update via a package manager such as winget and chocolatey, but it certainly fits for a watering hole attack.
I suppose one could view it as a supply-chain compromise of an alternate chain that's very short.
For windows users, this is an advantage of using `winget` for installing things. It points to the installer hosted elsewhere, but it at least does a signature check. The config for the latest installer is listed here: https://github.com/microsoft/winget-pkgs/blob/master/manifes...
which you can install with:
winget install --exact --id CPUID.CPU-Z
No, WinGet does not generally protect against this. While PRs to update package versions are verified in some way before going live, the necessary throughput can only be achieved with shallow checks. A determined actor could easily get a malicious update in, once they control the original source.
Other than that, WinGet is mostly just "run setup.exe". It is not a package manager. It's basically MajorGeeks as a mediocre CLI.
This manifest only shows sha checks, which wouldn't help if the manifest is updated during the site compromise. How does it do the signature check?
Presumably the manifest is in github and won't auto-update when something on the CPU-Z website changes?
What do you mean, how would it get the new version name/hash if not following the changes on the website?
I think you should spend the 5 minutes it takes to look at the winget-pkg repo to see how it works. There's lots of great documentation.
All updates are manual, and are done via pull requests. Check everything in-queue: https://github.com/microsoft/winget-pkgs/pulls
Existing versions don't tend to have their metadata updated (I'm not sure winget would accept it). Only new versions are supported.
You can see all the checks that go into cpu-z updates with the latest PR: https://github.com/microsoft/winget-pkgs/pull/349095
That would obviously be longer than 5 minutes; presumably you've done that and still can't answer the simple question
> All updates are manual, and are done via pull requests.
The pull requests can be and some are automated, so not all are manual. But more importantly, how would it help?
> Existing versions don't tend to have their metadata updated (I'm not sure winget would accept it). Only new versions are supported.
The attack is version update! How is the old manifest version relevant here?
> You can see all the checks that go into cpu-z updates with the latest PR:
> Description : Invoke an Azure Function > Static Analysis > Status: Started > Status: InProgress
Excellent, now how can I get the answer to the question from this valuable information?
Yes. Winget is getting better support on Windows apps. The other day I tried to download the latest version of ImageMagick but all the links on the official site were bad. I tried Winget and it had it!
Package managers also saved people from the Notepad++ hijack that was disclosed a couple months ago.
I think devs should avoid distributing their software on first party sites unless they're willing to dedicate a bunch of time to making sure all the infra is secure. Not a lot of people verify signatures, but it's also good to have your PKI in order (signing keys should be available on multiple channels)
same threat group hit filezilla last month with a fake domain. this time they didn't even need a fake domain, they compromised the real one's api layer. the attack is evolving from 'trick users into visiting the wrong site' to 'make the right site serve the wrong file.'
This is bad. I like to install software with winget. Are the versions there also compromised?
v1.63 updated 6 days ago https://github.com/microsoft/winget-pkgs/tree/master/manifes... via https://winstall.app/apps/CPUID.HWMonitor
v2.19 updated 15 days ago https://github.com/microsoft/winget-pkgs/tree/master/manifes... via https://winstall.app/apps/CPUID.CPU-Z
Grok post linking further sources: https://x.com/i/grok/share/3b870ceb9b424c01bf89afbe0de3bd81
some good details here https://xcancel.com/vxunderground/status/2042483067655262461
same threat group hit filezilla last month. they're specifically targeting utilities that tech-savvy users trust and download from official sources. the attack surface is the the api layer that generates download links, not the binary itself
"Bug fixes and general improvements."
Supply chain attacks are easier because changelogs for most software are useless now if they are provided at all.
I've wondered about this while using CachyOS and their package installer. I don't know what repos do what, I don't really understand the security model of the AUR, and I wonder, if I download a package, how can I know it's legitimate or otherwise by some trusted user of the community vs. some random person?
To provide some quick information (I implore others to correct me here):
- CachyOS packages should be coming from known, trusted CachyOS and Arch Linux maintainers. There is still potential for them or their original packages to get compromised (See XZ backdoor) however they are pulling source code from trusted sources so you can generally trust these as much as your trust the OS itself.
- AUR packages are a complete wild west. AUR packages are defined by PKGBUILD files and I highly recommend learning how to read PKGBUILDs and always reading them before installation and re-reading them when they are updated. PKGBUILDs for AUR packages can be treated as untrusted shell scripts and to a certain extent an arbitrary actor can make and upload any PKGBUILD to the AUR. Feel free to use them, but make sure A) they are downloading from trusted sources like the original git repo and B) they are running commands that are expected.
EDIT: Improved accuracy.
Jesus. I see that post and comment section and I immediately expect to hear Joey telling me about how this ATM is Idaho started spraying cash after his hack of the Gibson. That is a real-life reproduction of the perception of hackers in films in the '90s.
And CSI: Miami, which kept the vibe alive through the 2000s and "educated the masses" on how IT works. Beep boop, I'm in.
From the thread:
> Q: Why the heck did you hyperlink [the malware installer]?
> A: If someone reads this and they still click the download then they kind of deserve the virus tbh
someone has some l33t sk1llz