Re:The failed attempt to backdoor SSH globally – that got ca...
by LtWorf on Monday April 01, 2024 @05:42AM
(#39892314)
As many have already pointed out, the library can also be linked to sshd via selinux.
Re:The failed attempt to backdoor SSH globally – that got ca...
by inopinatus on Monday April 01, 2024 @05:57AM
(#39892388)
I've seen that ambit claim too, but I'm not even sure what distro(s) it is referring to since I'm unable to confirm it on any host where I have ldd casually to hand. Ref however https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2024/q1/356
Re:The failed attempt to backdoor SSH globally – that got ca...
by usr1106 on Monday April 01, 2024 @08:11AM
(#39893266)
That packaging error makes liblzma being pulled in at installation (well, it's probably already there if pid 1 requires it). But it will not make the sshd binary use it. So I think the original claim stands: Without patching sshd for the notification it will not use liblzma.
Disclaimer: I did not search for all possible occurrences of dlopen().
Re:The failed attempt to backdoor SSH globally – that got ca...
by himinlomax on Monday April 01, 2024 @10:54AM
(#39894765)
https://github.com/proposal-signals/proposal-signals
> libselinux does not link to liblzma. It turns out the confusion was because of an old downstream-only patch in Fedora and a stale dependency in the RPM spec which persisted long-beyond its removal.
[1] https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2024/q1/268