Re:Malicious software libraries found in PyPI posing as well...
by hannob on Friday September 15, 2017 @10:00AM
(#15257196)
We're not the authors of those packages. But we own many others.
1. We're not obfuscating pingbacks.
2./3. We're raising an exception with an explanation and a link.
Just look at the code of one of our packages: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/codecs
The research in 2016 was done by someone else. The kinda crazy thing is: Some of the package names he used were made available again after that instead of being blocked... And now we own them.
Re:Malicious software libraries found in PyPI posing as well...
by edraferi on Friday September 15, 2017 @10:10AM
(#15257250)
Man. You're right - that's a mess.
Re:Malicious software libraries found in PyPI posing as well...
by chupapuma on Friday September 15, 2017 @11:38AM
(#15258014)
And just to be super clear, this is the code. Hard from scary or obfuscated:
html = urllib_request.urlopen(
"https://www.pytosquatting.org/pingback/pypi/{}/".format(package_name)
)
raise Exception(
"This is a bogus package that should not be installed\n\n"
"Please read https://www.pytosquatting.org"
)
Is your project the author of the packages identified by NBU? If so:
(1) Why is the tracking pingback obfuscated?
(2) Why does the code include a cheeky hello instead of a link to https://www.pytosquatting.org/ ?
(3) Why is there not a visible warning when installing one of these packages?
=================
edit:
Reading through the linked blog post [0], it appears these researchers used different code that DID provide visible warning and an cleartext pingback. It also collected command history and hardware information.
[0] http://incolumitas.com/2016/06/08/typosquatting-package-mana...