i kinda wish that some people who post security vulns stop being so vague and cherry-picky sometimes, like you could have written in your post that it only affects windows and it affects only a certain range of versions of the program. would have clearned things up better imo. interesting to know, though.
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
94 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54443 readers
253 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You should have read the post more carefully. The CVE affects every OS. Just the first shown example is Windows only.
Also, the relevant commits are outlined in the first paragraph. This article is not for the stupid user it's a technical analysis on a few ways to exploit it and for those cases the commits are more relevant than the version. Also saying which versions are affected is not that easy, commits can be backported into an older version by for example the packager.
If you are running Windows [...]
and
from June 2015 until the present, affecting v3.2.1 through v5.0.0 inclusive. The behaviour does not appear to be replicated for other OS variants
Notably, 5.0.1 was released three days ago. So a fix is available.
The first patched release is version 5.0.1, released 2 days ago.
Perfect example of a (part of a) security vulnerability being fixed in a commit that doesn't immediately seem security related and would never be back ported to a ~~stable~~stale distro
The code which parses the binary MaxMind database after decompression is well guarded as of 2024 but used to look different, potentially providing more attack surface. There is also an interesting commit where a contributor makes adjustments to the
gzip::decompress()function which hints at a stack overflow, as the destination buffer was changed from static allocation on the stack to dynamic allocation on the heap, though it was not exploitable due to checks before it is written to
Containerization helps, but best to patch asap.
Mitigations
Just use another torrent client. Deluge and Transmission etc do not have this vulnerability.
Was wondering what the takeaway is here. I updated to 5.0.1. Does that fix all these? If not, guess I'll try a different torrent client.
yeah, they have other undiscovered vulnerabilities
The first patched release is version 5.0.1, released 2 days ago.
Is there something we should do in the meantime? I’m not the most savvy individual when it comes to tech on this level.
Not really. This requires a sophisticated attacker. I’d suggest updating soon but I doubt most people are at risk. As always verify downloads before running them and check where you should be getting updates and if you’re sent to a sketchy file host try to find updates from the official website instead.
The biggest risk is MTM interception and replacement of the python executable if you try and use the search tool for the first time. I suppose avoid doing that until you update the client from their website.
Thanks. This makes it a lot clearer.
Just update it to the latest
Ah. So this has already been addressed? Okay, thanks for responding.
Yea that was very unclear to me that it was already addressed.
Will I be OK updating from the Debian repo?
From another poster above, it seems only Windows machines are affected.