Comment by cyanydeez

Comment by cyanydeez 6 days ago

8 replies

While you think this is a producer problem, it's simply a userland market.

Just like in the 90s when viruses primarily went to windows, it' wasn't some magical property of windows, it was the market of users available.

Also, following this logic, it then becomes survivorship bias, in that the more attacks they get, the more researchers spend time looking & documenting.

elwebmaster 6 days ago

While it can happen to anyone npm does preselect the users most likely to unknowingly amplify such an attack. Just today I was working on a simple JS script while disconnected from the Internet, Qwen Coder suggested I “npm install glob” which I couldn’t because there was no internet, so I asked for an alternative and sure enough the alternative solution was two lines of vanilla JS. This is just one example but it is the modus operandi of the NPM ecosystem.

KevinMS 6 days ago

> it' wasn't some magical property of windows

no, it really was windows

  • foobiekr 6 days ago

    It really wasn't. MacOS classic was full of vulnerabilities as was OS/2 and Linux up through 2004. Windows dominated because it was the biggest ecosystem.

    • ndsipa_pomu 5 days ago

      What made Windows easy to exploit was that it enabled a bunch of network services by default. I don't know about MacOS, but Linux disabled network services by default and generally had a better grasp of network security such as requiring authentication for services (e.g. compare telnet and ssh).

      Also, Windows had the ridiculous default of immediately running things when a user put in a CD or USB stick - that behaviour led to many infections and is obviously a stupid default option.

      I'm not even going to mention the old Windows design of everyone running with admin privileges on their desktop.

      • cesarb 5 days ago

        > Also, Windows had the ridiculous default of immediately running things when a user put in a CD or USB stick - that behaviour led to many infections and is obviously a stupid default option.

        Playing devil's advocate: absent the obvious security issues, it's a brilliant default option from an user experience point of view, especially if the user is not well-versed in the subtleties of filesystem management. Put the CD into the tray, close the tray, and the software magically starts, no need to go through the file manager and double-click on an obscurely named file.

        It made more sense back when most software was distributed as pressed CD-ROMs, and the publisher of the software (which you bought shrink-wrapped at a physical store) could be assumed to be trusted. Once CD-R writers became popular, and anyone could and did write their own data CDs, these assumptions no longer held.

        > I'm not even going to mention the old Windows design of everyone running with admin privileges on their desktop.

        That design makes sense for a single-user computer where the user is the owner of the computer, and all software on it is assumed to be trusted. Even today, many Linux distributions add the first (and often only) user to a sudoers group by default.

        • ndsipa_pomu 5 days ago

          > Playing devil's advocate: absent the obvious security issues, it's a brilliant default option from an user experience point of view, especially if the user is not well-versed in the subtleties of filesystem management. Put the CD into the tray, close the tray, and the software magically starts, no need to go through the file manager and double-click on an obscurely named file.

          It's a stupid default, though. One way round the issue is to present the user with the option to either just open a disc or to run the installer and allow them to change the default if they prefer the less secure option.

          > It made more sense back when most software was distributed as pressed CD-ROMs, and the publisher of the software (which you bought shrink-wrapped at a physical store) could be assumed to be trusted

          This allowed Sony BMG to infect so many computers with their rootkit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...).

          > That design makes sense for a single-user computer where the user is the owner of the computer, and all software on it is assumed to be trusted. Even today, many Linux distributions add the first (and often only) user to a sudoers group by default.

          A sudoers group is different though as it highlights the difference between what files they are expected to change (i.e. that they own) and which ones require elevated permissions (e.g. installing system software). Earlier versions of Windows did not have that distinction which was a huge security issue.

TZubiri 6 days ago

right, npm users. The extreme demand for simple packages and the absent consideration creates an opportunity for attackers to insert "free" solutions. The problem are the 'npm install' happy developers no doubt.