this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
274 points (93.9% liked)
Technology
59299 readers
4547 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
From what it's describing, it sounds like it would only impact Linux computers that allow SMB1 access, such as domain-joined systems with samba access allowed. It sounds like this would target mainly enterprise Linux deployments but home Linux setups should be fine for the most part.
They describe an SSH infector, as well as a credentials scanner. To me, that sounds like it started like from exploited/infected Windows computers with SSH access, and then continued from there.
With how many unencrypted SSH keys there are, how most hosts keep a list of the servers they SSH into, and how they can probably bypass some firewall protections once they're inside the network: not a bad idea.
I think the original article talked about "spreading" to Linux machines so that generally tracks with what you're saying that it starts on a Windows machine that itself has access to a Linux machine.
My job still had Windows 95 machines running just a couple years ago. Could there still be Samba1 running out there or does Linux update differently?
Of course there is. Unfortunately the average Linux self-hoster doesn't have much of a clue and probably runs vulnerable Samba (even if it's not S1). Of course it doesn't help that Samba seems to get a vulnerability about once a week. It's one of the most targeted pieces of network software you could run.
I know that Linux is a host of OSs but generally speaking is it up to the user to keep their software up to date or is there some kind of automatic updating process?
There are automated updates, especially for security issues, but since Linux users feel they are power users and seldom have to deal with security issues, they often disable updates and do them manually. If and when they remember. And for self-hosted software it's worst because often they don't even consider running updates.
This depends entirely on the distribution. The distribution I run has no automatic updates by default. I do it manually.
I could easily set it up if I wanted to, but yeah. There is no consensus, it's just case-by-case basis. Some do have automatic updates by default.
Some day I'd like to try Linux. Another commentor on another post was telling me about Clover for old Chromebooks. The amount of variety in Linux can be intimidating.
It's an interesting hobby if you get into it. There are hundreds of variations when you count things like distributions, desktop environments and so on, but there's only a few core mainstream "families" where you get down to it. For something like an old Chromebook it's basically decided for you since there's only specific variants made for it.
Unfortunately I don't have a lot of hardware to even put Linux on. Talking with the users on the other post piqued my curiosity a little. We'll see. Thanks for clearing some stuff up for me.
Oh I just mean from the point of view of someone who's never tried it before. Lots of people arrive at Linux through indirect fields (pc building, self-hosting, gaming etc.) If it somehow turns into a career down the road all the better.
The bank I work at still has core systems running Lotus 🙃
Lotus 123 was outdated when I was still a kid. That's impressive.
Those machines were controlling a conveyor belt system and weren't online. I was told the software they were running wasn't available for other OSs. They were locked in a cabinet. That entire conveyor system is now gone so those machines are probably gone too.
You're going over my head now but looking at Wikipedia that looks about right. It was controlling machinery based on input from various sensors.
Yeah windows 2000 assembly robots, too expensive to replace and too critical to not keep alive.
Well those were controlling a conveyor belt system that maintenance told me they bought used in the 90s.
Interesting, thanks for that