this is a techincal dive into how cloudflare responded, not a confirmation that they responded
for whatever reason, unknown to me, hn automatically strips "how" from the start of titles. i cant remember ever seeing a title where this was an improvement.
I’ve been hit by this when posting links. If you edit the post, you can re-add the stripped word and it will stay. “Why” is another that is often stripped.
not sure about that specific case or if '?' has anything to do with it, but there is a short editing window where the submitter can re-add the "how" or whatever back in
With LLMs, you could actually do anti-clickbait titles. Extract the article text with something like r.jina.ai, and ask an LLM to generate a ~80-character summary that explains the main point of the article for people too busy to read it.
The fact that LLMs usually generate anodyne summaries is actualy a benefit here.
I used my website-to-markdown tool[0] to get the text, piped the output to claude -p and got a pretty decent "Patching Copy Fail at scale: how bpf-lsm bought us time before the kernel reboot" result.
To do that, you need to read the article first, which is the point of click-bait titles. The point of the defense is to avoid exposing your neurons to that stuff.
Any Cloudflare employees reading this, your network map has a few PoPs missing from it https://www.cloudflare.com/network/ notably, Perth (PER) Australia. Hobart (HBA) Australia. Wellington (WLG), New Zealand. Christchurch (CHC), New Zealand. Nausori (SUV), Fiji.
If they're already running a custom Linux kernel build, why did they have AF_ALG enabled? Seems the perfect situation to limit features to only those actually being used.
Would love to learn more about their internal behavioural detection program.
> One of the first things our security team did was confirm that our existing endpoint detection would catch this exploit. Our servers run behavioral detection that continuously monitors process execution patterns. It doesn't rely on knowing about specific vulnerabilities; it watches for anomalous behavior across the fleet.
Would certainly be interesting to learn more about. A simple check: allowlist of known "processes that run as root". Any new process shows up, something happened.
Proc title is very easily forged (without root even). Obviously a real privileged process could modify the kernel and do whatever it wants, but if I were trying to detect this I would start with /proc/$id/exe.
/proc/pid/exe is also easily forged, without root. For example you can do LD_PRELOAD=evil.so /bin/foo on any dynamic executable, or spawn /bin/foo unmodified and inject code via ptrace or /proc/pid/mem.
I have a fileless, execless copyfail exploit that works by injecting shellcode directly into systemd's pid 1. (I should probably publish it at some point...)
Yeah the whole system is based on the ability of one task to apparently become another task, that's how Unix works. So the indicators in /proc are just that: indicative at best.
There's no reason the task should even be assumed to be executing code in a file. A process can map code into anonymous memory and continue executing there without even branching. Again this is considered a feature of the system rather than a flaw.
Yes but I am interested in hearing about cloudflare's implementation, how they scale it to their whole fleet, and what kinds of heuristics they are using to classifying behavior as anomalous.
* Get list of modules from Puppet's facts, confirm module isn't used anywhere (it wasn't)
* `install algif_aead /bin/false` in /etc/modprobe.d/disable-algif.conf
* Run a check using exploit code to check it is no longer working
I imagine CF runs more stuff that could use it I guess but apparently it's not often used API
> Linux kernel build based on the community's Long-Term Support (LTS)
CopyFail only highlights why Companies want LTS. If there was a supported kernel built prior to 2017, most large companies would still be on that version, avoiding this issue all-together.
The corporate mindset is usually "never upgrade unless there is new hardware needed or critical software failure". All CopyFail did was reinforce that mindset.
I wonder if CopyFail will cause enterprises put pressure on the Linux Foundation to maintain a "ultra LTS" were it is supported for 20 years ?
> CopyFail only highlights why Companies want LTS. If there was a supported kernel built prior to 2017, most large companies would still be on that version, avoiding this issue all-together.
Sadly not really how it works for say Red Hat. They routinely backport features while keeping whatever "stable" number on kernel. We even had displeasure of them backporting a bug... same bug to 2 different RHEL versions
The "Hunting for Exploitation" section is unclear to me: "The exploit leaves a distinctive trace in kernel logs when it runs." Hmm. Wouldn't a system with a compromised kernel also log exactly what the attacker wanted logged?
I guess the hope is the kernel has been able to successfully transmit that log message to the immutable central logging infra before it gets compromised.
Although given the tendency for end point logging agents to run on buffers to reduce their network chattiness I do wonder if a fast acting exploit could dump that buffer before it manages to be transmitted.
I don't think any of the agents are complex enough to immediately transmit permission elevation log messages over the regular background noise.
The attack itself creates the logs, which - reading between the lines - are shipped to a central log server. A compromised server might not send any new indicators to the logs, but existing logs moved off device would still be available.
I'd like to know what those distinctive traces are, which is also missing :(
Your exploit would have to get root and kill/exploit the logging daemon near instantly, else the log will already be sent to remote before you can change it locally
for whatever reason, unknown to me, hn automatically strips "how" from the start of titles. i cant remember ever seeing a title where this was an improvement.
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48018715 "How do I inform Windows that I’m writing a binary file?"
I wonder if it ending in a '?' has anything to do with it?
edit: Upon review, at the time of posting it was actually on the 2nd page
Before: Teens break record for world's longest kickball game
After: Teens break record for longest kickball game
Titles are standard clickbait.
I do think this would genuinely be useful.
The fact that LLMs usually generate anodyne summaries is actualy a benefit here.
I used my website-to-markdown tool[0] to get the text, piped the output to claude -p and got a pretty decent "Patching Copy Fail at scale: how bpf-lsm bought us time before the kernel reboot" result.
[0] https://markshot.dev
> One of the first things our security team did was confirm that our existing endpoint detection would catch this exploit. Our servers run behavioral detection that continuously monitors process execution patterns. It doesn't rely on knowing about specific vulnerabilities; it watches for anomalous behavior across the fleet.
I have a fileless, execless copyfail exploit that works by injecting shellcode directly into systemd's pid 1. (I should probably publish it at some point...)
There's no reason the task should even be assumed to be executing code in a file. A process can map code into anonymous memory and continue executing there without even branching. Again this is considered a feature of the system rather than a flaw.
In a serious environment you'd run IPE with dm-verity/fs-verity to ensure binaries are whitelisted and integrity-checked at every execution.
* Get list of modules from Puppet's facts, confirm module isn't used anywhere (it wasn't) * `install algif_aead /bin/false` in /etc/modprobe.d/disable-algif.conf * Run a check using exploit code to check it is no longer working
I imagine CF runs more stuff that could use it I guess but apparently it's not often used API
It sounds great but that could be as low as 50.1% since they don't provide an actual percentage.
CopyFail only highlights why Companies want LTS. If there was a supported kernel built prior to 2017, most large companies would still be on that version, avoiding this issue all-together.
The corporate mindset is usually "never upgrade unless there is new hardware needed or critical software failure". All CopyFail did was reinforce that mindset.
I wonder if CopyFail will cause enterprises put pressure on the Linux Foundation to maintain a "ultra LTS" were it is supported for 20 years ?
Sadly not really how it works for say Red Hat. They routinely backport features while keeping whatever "stable" number on kernel. We even had displeasure of them backporting a bug... same bug to 2 different RHEL versions
Although given the tendency for end point logging agents to run on buffers to reduce their network chattiness I do wonder if a fast acting exploit could dump that buffer before it manages to be transmitted.
I don't think any of the agents are complex enough to immediately transmit permission elevation log messages over the regular background noise.
I'd like to know what those distinctive traces are, which is also missing :(