Top
Best
New

Posted by zkldi 3 hours ago

There isn't an easy exploit for this PHP vulnerability(eliastaylor.com)
187 points | 88 commentspage 3
tamimio 1 hour ago||
>script kiddie

Get on time, pa, they are called LLM kiddie now

0xbadcafebee 1 hour ago||
RCE is incredibly dangerous not because it lets you execute arbitrary code, but because it lets you execute some code. Code you're not supposed to execute. As soon as someone can do that, all they have to do is probe until they find something to chain.

Almost every system on the internet has some local code you can chain to gain root, or a way to put some in place. It gets worse when it affects legacy systems, because they're the bastard stepchild of security. RCE on a box that hasn't been patched since Obama's first term is what little blackhats' dreams are made of. And developers are way too lazy to intentionally design their apps into different privilege domains to protect against chaining. Unless your app runs chroot() (is my neckbeard showing?) or in a container with nothing but a Go binary, somebody can LFI it.

A crack in the door is plenty of space to get a crowbar in (especially with interpreted languages).

Tadpole9181 2 hours ago||
> So why was everyone so scared?

I think this section misses the mark.

The biggest problem is that for a good 12 hours nobody knew what was going on. All we knew was there is a critical vulnerability affecting all of us that allows RCE somehow and we have to have vulnerable servers open for potentially even longer.

Everyone who knew was being hush hush, only chiming in to say "nah, those workarounds don't work, you're fucked".

So when people started spreading rumors of PoC or when the Cloud flare CTO posted that they were actively seeing exploit traffic - what are we supposed to do?

We aren't sitting there trying to PoC with Claude - we're subscribing to a bunch of news feeds and twitter accounts while we try to prepare for the patch and close down what we can. We're calling executives saying "hey, how much money do we lose by being offline for 6 hours?"

So even if this isn't as easily exploitable as first believed, no one could have known that, because those with the ability to calm us down were seemingly choosing to stoke the fires.

This is (IMO) a failure of the potentially outdated disclosure system that's supposed to protect us. And at the very least a trial run of how the world may react next time, if it really is that bad.

thomasfromcdnjs 2 hours ago||
Yeah, I suggested to take down the app someone between seeing the Gina (core) comment (saying php.ini etc changes won't do anything) and after seeing the Cloudflare CTO tweet.
fwlr 1 hour ago|||
IMO it is a little bit silly to describe “a system that works well until it intersects with a trillion dollar company’s PR campaign” as an outdated failure.
malfist 20 minutes ago||
Or perhaps, trillion dollar companies should be more responsible. Either because they fear regulation that will force them to be responsible, or because there is regulation that will make the responsible.
Celeo 2 hours ago|||
Very well said. Even for non-sensitive stuff that I was told was "super vulnerable", I didn't know if this was a full, actual RCE - some places said yes, others no. Did I need to take down everything running PHP? Just the apps dealing with data I didn't want leaked? Etc.

The rather long delay in getting official Docker images didn't help; we were told "patch now!!1!!" but that apparently meant building from source.

lgl 2 hours ago||
Great reply, this hits the nail in the head and is pretty much exactly how I spent my day. Just reading, waiting and stressing while being essentially in the dark about the whole thing.

I'm assuming the next few days will probably confirm if this was mostly FUD or not.

ajross 2 hours ago||
It's a digression, but FTA:

> When I think about "we're very fucked" CVE10s on the Internet, I think of the following vulnerabilities:

Which is IMHO a really good list. It's also, I think, important to note that every single one of the four items is not at all a memory safety bug. They're all logic, at various levels of an interpretation stack.

I think a lot of folks with their heads down in the security world might have expected the opposite. As is often the case in engineering, the smartest people end up obsessing over solving the less important parts of the problem.

theamk 2 hours ago||
I think Heartbleed is close enough to memory safety to count. It was caused by memory allocator returning uninitialized memory and every memory safe language I know about does not allow this in best-practice code.

(And sure, there are escape hatches - like Python has "recv_into" that could be used to implement heartbleed if you are really inclined to - but this would not be a realistic python program. In python, even with buffer reuse, you'd be using memoryview or similar that can't have a heartbleed problem)

phyzome 2 hours ago|||
Heartbleed was a buffer overread. Sounds like a memory safety bug... is it not?
insanitybit 2 hours ago||
It was.
insanitybit 2 hours ago|||
The vast majority of web services are not written in memory unsafe languages so this is not surprising.

One of the exceptions (with regards to web facing attack surface in a memory unsafe language) is that people still use OpenSSL, which has a terrible history of memory unsafety, including the cited heartbleed.

tptacek 2 hours ago|||
Serverside memory corruption is annoying to get working. As a dominant metagame strategy for attackers, it's much more impactful on the clientside.

(I'm not cosigning the analysis in this blog post. I think "I haven't seen a PoC I could get working" is not the evidence this author seems to think it is.)

redox99 2 hours ago||
Huh? Heartbleed is literaly memory safety (buffer over read)
nprateem 1 hour ago||
Clickbait bullshit from Internet nobodies.

https://www.ft.com/content/245778d9-597b-492d-b5b6-a2967c77e...

elmer2 3 hours ago||
[flagged]
cookiengineer 2 hours ago|
[removed]
lukev 2 hours ago||
If anything, claiming that this vulnerability has been known and unpatched for 22 years supports the author's point: clearly it's not that easy to actually use.
edoceo 2 hours ago||
WAS not easy, now it's much easier.
stuffoverflow 2 hours ago|||
Glad to be proven wrong but as far as I can see there are no reports of it currently being exploited in the wild at the scale you are implying. It genuinely takes a lot of time to weaponize even with the assistance of frontier LLM models and it is way more difficult when you don't control the server.

I largely agree with the author and it is a common annoyance in cyber security discussions where people make strong claims but have nothing to back it up with.

asddubs 2 hours ago|||
Do you have any links to a working PoC that appeared before the details were released? I'm seeing a lot of conflicting info, and I'm not really sure what to think. People saying they were seeing people trying to exploit this hours ahead of the patch release on their servers, yet no one who seemingly actually got pwned by it (were people just misreading their logs?)