4 comments

  • jraph2 hours ago
    &gt; If one did wish to use Singularity for nefarious purposes, however, the code is MIT licensed and freely available — using it in that way would only be a crime, not an instance of copyright infringement.<p>Too bad the author picked the MIT license. Had they picked (A)GPL, it would have forced the criminals to distribute a copy of LICENSE.TXT alongside their improved copy of the source code on systems they compromise. Failing this, using it in that way would be both a crime and an instance of copyright infringement.<p>Although, it occurs to me that if they don&#x27;t give credits to the original author, it&#x27;s also already a copyright infringement under the MIT.
    • reactordev1 hour ago
      They checked with their lawyers first… lol.<p>Pretty sure all laws are null and void in their mind.
    • ilvez2 hours ago
      It&#x27;s probably an old joke, but heard it here first. LOL
      • jraph2 hours ago
        I don&#x27;t know about you, but for ethical reasons, I only allow libre rootkits to run on my systems.
        • sva_1 hour ago
          Do you compile them yourself then? For possible arch specific optimizations
  • bmitch30201 hour ago
    Previously discussed at <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=46498658">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=46498658</a>
  • markus_zhang39 minutes ago
    Ah this is so interesting. Rootkits are difficult to implement already, and RE them definitely is another level. Now we have a guidance.
  • XorNot2 hours ago
    Man I just discovered this as a good guide on how to exceed the normal limits on Linux kernel modules.<p>Been working on a derviative which hooks the VFS to allow dynamically remapping file paths on a per process basis so I can force badly behaved apps to load custom TLS certificates (looking at you Bazil builds in nixpkgs).<p>(If anyone knows something which already does this it would save me a lot of yak shaving)
    • st_goliath1 hour ago
      &gt; how to exceed the normal limits on Linux kernel modules.<p>Uh, what limits? I&#x27;m not aware of <i>anything</i> that would stop your module, once probed, from reaching around the back of the kernel and futzing around in the internals of another driver&#x2F;device in a completely unrelated subsystem, or subsystem internals. SoC&#x2F;SoM vendors <i>love</i> to pull that kind of crap in their BSPs.<p>&gt; hooks the VFS to allow dynamically remapping file paths on a per process basis<p>Instead of messing with kernel VFS internals, you could try:<p>- patching the offending application or package (ideally make the path configurable and contribute that back upstream)<p>- running the application in a mount namespace and bind-mount something over the path<p>- use LD_PRELOAD to wrap fopen&#x2F;open&#x2F;openat (I&#x27;m pretty sure, ready made solutions for this already exist)
    • linuxftw44 minutes ago
      &gt; Been working on a derviative which hooks the VFS to allow dynamically remapping file paths on a per process basis so I can force badly behaved apps to load custom TLS certificates (looking at you Bazil builds in nixpkgs).<p>chroot or namespaces&#x2F;containers?