Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.devel > #108718

Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure

From Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org>
Newsgroups linux.debian.devel
Subject Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure
Date 2023-07-22 14:50 +0200
Message-ID <GUkdA-1Y58-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <GTVoR-1ICx-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <GTVoS-1ICx-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <GTVyx-1IFz-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <GUfxf-1V9t-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <GUfGW-1Vd5-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On 2023-07-22 08:54:59 +0100 (+0100), Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
> When is a user going to plug in a USB stick and *not* click that
> button? I'm not analysing a filesystem by hand to check whether
> it's trustworthy before I want it mounted. There's no reason to
> automount when the screen is locked and presenting a dialog in the
> case where one was plugged in and then the screen unlocked is
> reasonable, but that just makes no sense as generic behaviour.

When the user has plugged in something that they don't realize
contains a USB storage device, perhaps because it's attached to an
internal hub within a device which has other purposes.

I've read about unsuspecting users buying/borrowing USB chargers and
cables which contain malicious widgets designed to backdoor systems.
Maybe it's urban legend because I don't personally know anyone who's
said they've had machines compromised that way, and most probably
target Windows/iOS/Android anyway even if they are in circulation,
but since the majority of my portable computing devices charge over
USB these days I try to be conscious of it and never plug into the
"convenient" charging ports supplied in airports, airplanes, hotel
rooms, conference rooms... I just bring my own chargers with me.

Also, while the risks of hacked USB devices isn't limited to
exploiting filesystem drivers (backdoored keyboards apparently also
exist, for example), I tend to not configure hotplug automounting
more for preference of having direct control over the system's
behavior. I would much rather explicitly call the mount command and
be able to decide where in the file tree it gets added, on the rare
occasion that I do actually need to plug in a storage peripheral for
some reason. I get that I'm probably an exception, but there are
definitely users who simply find automounting behavior annoying,
beyond any potential security concerns.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

Back to linux.debian.devel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Bug#1041552: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2023-07-20 20:10 +0200
  Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> - 2023-07-21 10:30 +0200
    Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2023-07-21 11:00 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Magissia <debianlist@magissia.com> - 2023-07-21 11:10 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2023-07-21 12:10 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 13:00 +0200
        Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 13:10 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> - 2023-07-21 19:40 +0200
        Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2023-07-23 02:40 +0200
    Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Magissia <debianlist@magissia.com> - 2023-07-21 11:20 +0200
    Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 12:00 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2023-07-21 12:20 +0200
        Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 12:30 +0200
          Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 13:10 +0200
          Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-07-22 09:50 +0200
            Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> - 2023-07-22 10:00 +0200
              Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2023-07-22 10:30 +0200
                Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> - 2023-07-22 10:40 +0200
              Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2023-07-22 14:50 +0200
                Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-07-25 06:40 +0200
              Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2023-07-25 06:30 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <rouca@debian.org> - 2023-07-21 12:20 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Bastien Roucariès <bastien.roucaries@cyu.fr> - 2023-07-21 12:30 +0200
      Re: HFS/HFS+ are insecure Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@canonical.com> - 2023-07-21 23:20 +0200

csiph-web