OMG that's evil. The diff just shows:

  +
  +.
  +

and the dot goes unnoticed

like a more (ostensibly) malicious “goto fail”

I wonder why they didn't use a non-breaking space or similar. I guess it's possible a nbsp would stand out even more.

the extra dot is easily hand waved away as a mistake. a non breaking space looks intentional.

They could have just misspelt one of the constants. Even less obvious and more deniable.

There's multiple things like this in this backdoor that seems like they've been super sneaky (using a compile check to disable Landlock is genius) but then half-assed the last step.

Plausible deniability probably. A dot could be a typo, a NBSP is less likely.

This is very likely just a mistake and not deliberate.

a) absolutely nobody uses cmake to build this packet

b) if you try to build the packet with cmake and -DENABLE_SANDBOX=landlock, the build just fails: https://i.imgur.com/7xbeWFx.png

The "." does not disable sandboxing, it just makes it impossible to build with cmake. If anyone had ever actually tried building it with cmake, they would get the error and realize that something is wrong. It makes absolutely no sense that this would be malicious attempt to reduce security.

I really hate writing these compile/build time conditional things. It's hard to have tests that it's enabled when it should be and disabled when it isn't, especially if it's in the build system where there's no unit test framework.

And that's with the failure party being just accidentally borking it so the test always fails or always succeeds when it shouldn't. You can see why it's a juicy target for malicious actions.