chromacity 2 days ago
We've built our existing tech stacks and corporate governance structures for a different era. If you want to credit one specific development for making things dramatically worse, it's cryptocurrencies, not AI. They've turned the cottage industry of malicious hacking into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise that's attractive even to rogue nations such as North Korea. And with this much at stake, they can afford to simply buy your software dependencies, or to offer one of your employees some retirement money in exchange for making a "mistake".
We know how to write software with very few bugs (although we often choose not to). We have no good plan for keeping big enterprises secure in this reality. Autonomous LLM agents will be used by ransomware gangs and similar operations, but they don't need FreeBSD exploit-writing capabilities for that.
bradley13 2 days ago
The project authors probably don't even know what libraries their project requires, because many of them are transitive dependencies. There is zero chance that they have checked those libraries for supply chain attacks.
toniantunovi 2 days ago
The deeper structural issue is that plugin update notifications function as an implicit trust signal. Users see "update available" and click without questioning whether the author is still the same person. A package signing and transfer transparency system similar to what npm has been working toward would help here, but the WordPress ecosystem has historically moved slowly on security infrastructure.
spankalee 2 days ago
FAIR has a very interesting architecture, inspired by atproto, that I think has the potential to mitigate some of the supply-chain attacks we've seen recently.
In FAIR, there's no central package repository. Anyone can run one, like an atproto PDS. Packages have DIDs, routable across all repositories. There are aggregators that provide search, front-ends, etc. And like Bluesky, there are "labelers", separate from repositories and front-ends. So organizations like Socket, etc can label packages with their analysis in a first class way, visible to the whole ecosystem.
So you could set up your installer to ban packages flagged by Socket, or ones that recently published by a new DID, etc. You could run your own labeler with AI security analysis on the packages you care about. A specific community could build their own lint rules and label based on that (like e18e in the npm ecosystem.
Not perfect, but far better than centralized package managers that only get the features their owner decides to pay for.
jimrandomh a day ago
In the case of small Wordpress extensions from individual developers, I think the tradeoff is such that you should basically never allow auto-updating. Unfortunately wordpress.org runs a Wordpress extension marketplace that doesn't work that way, and worse. I think that other than a small number of high-visibility long-established extensions, you should basically never install anything from there, and if you want a Wordpress extension you should download its source code and install it manually as an unpacked extension.
(This is a comment that I wrote about Chrome extensions, where I replaced Chrome with Wordpress, deleted one sentence about Google, and it was all still true. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47721946#47724474 )
lambdaone 20 hours ago
fblp a day ago
Maybe mergers or acquisitions that substantially impact security should require approval by marketplaces (industry governance), and notification and approval by even governments?
edg5000 a day ago
Is that it? Going through all that trouble just for some spam? Surely more lucrative criminal actions can be imagined with a compromised WP plugin?
edg5000 a day ago
ChuckMcM 2 days ago
RandomGerm4n a day ago
elric a day ago
meteyor 2 days ago
K0IN a day ago
paglaghoda 19 hours ago
antaviana a day ago
Ban crypto and both industries will become way, way smaller.
alex1sa a day ago
ashishb 2 days ago
WordPress is now a dangerous ecosystem because of the plugins and their current security model.
I moved to Hugo and encourage others to do so - https://ashishb.net/tech/wordpress-to-hugo/
latentframe a day ago
pants2 a day ago
What I worry about are the long tail of indie apps/extensions/plugins that can get acquired under good intentions and then weaponized. These apps are probably worth more to a threat actor than someone who wants to operate the business genuinely.
ValentineC 2 days ago
aitchnyu a day ago
arjie a day ago
Looking at the list of plugins, I'd probably write accordion-and-accordion-slider and so on myself (meaning Claude Code and Codex would do most of the work). I think the future of software is like that: there is no reason to use most dependencies and so we'll likely tend towards our own library of software, with the web of trust unnecessary because all we need are other people's ideas, not their software.
srslyTrying2hlp 17 hours ago
zadikian a day ago
jdthedisciple a day ago
2 days ago
Comment deletedlinzhangrun a day ago
amai 20 hours ago
vedant_awasthi a day ago
ramon156 2 days ago
Projectiboga a day ago
carabiner a day ago
sourcecodeplz a day ago
gonesilent a day ago
neilv a day ago
In browser plugins and mobile apps (and maybe WordPress plugins?), it's pretty well known that malware attackers buying those is a frequent thing, and a serious threat. So:
1. So is there an argument to be made that a developer/publisher/marketplace selling such software, after it has established a reputation and an installed base, may have an obligation to make some level of effort not to sell out their users to malware/criminals?
2. Do we already have some parties developing software with the intention of selling it to malware/criminals, planning that selling it will insulate them from being considered a co-conspirator or accessory?
donohoe a day ago
shynome 16 hours ago
h4kunamata a day ago
It begs the question, who is at faulty here??
I would never run a piece of software that either itself gets compromised or the tons of plugins it sometimes depends on.
empressplay a day ago
I'm never using Wordpress again and I strongly suggest nobody else does either.
tap-snap-or-nap a day ago
antonvs a day ago
aksss a day ago
pluc 2 days ago
shevy-java 2 days ago
saltyoldman 2 days ago
edit: The idea is the $1 goes towards the tokens required to scan the source code by an LLM, not simply cost a dollar for no other reason that raising the bar.
First submission is full code scan, incremental releases the scanner focuses on the diffs.
0xbadcafebee a day ago
A software building code could provide a legal framework to hold someone liable for transferring ownership of a software product and significantly altering its operation without informing its users. This is a serious issue for any product that depends on another product to ensure safety, privacy, financial impact, etc. It could add additional protections like requiring that cryptographic signature keys be rotated for new owners, or a 30-day warning period where users are given a heads up about the change in ownership or significant operation of the product. Or it could require architectural "bulkheads" that prevent an outside piece of software from compromising the entire thing (requiring a redesign of flawed software). The point of all this would be to prevent a similar attack in the future that might otherwise be legal.
But why a software building code? Aren't building codes slow and annoying and expensive? Isn't it impossible to make a good regulation? Shouldn't we be moving faster and cheaper? Why should I care?
You should care about a building code, because:
1. These major compromises are getting easier, not harder. Tech is big business, and it isn't slowing down, it's ramping up. AI makes attacks easier, and attackers see it's working, so they are more emboldened. Plus, cyber warfare is now the cheaper, more effective way to disrupt operations overseas, without launching a drone or missile, and often without a trace.
2. All of the attacks lately have been preventable. They all rely on people not securing their stacks and workflows. There's no new cutting-edge technology required; you just need to follow the security guidelines that security wonks have been going on and on about for a decade.
3. Nobody is going to secure their stack until you force them to. The physical realm we occupy will never magically make people spontaneously want to do more effort and take more time just to prevent a potential attack at some random point in the future. If it's optional, and more effort, it will be avoided, every time. "The Industry" has had decades to create "industry" solutions to this, and not only haven't they done this, the industry's track record is getting worse.
4. The only thing that will stop these attacks is if you create a consequence for not preventing them. That's what the building code does. Hold people accountable with a code in law. Then they will finally take the extra time and money necessary to secure their shit.
5. The building code does not have to be super hard, or perfect. It just has to be better than what we have now. That's a very low bar. It will be improved over time, like the physical world's building code, fire code, electrical code, health & safety code, etc. It will prevent the easily preventable, standardize common practice, and hold people accountable for unnecessarily putting everyone at risk.
I keep saying it again and again. I get downvoted every time, but I don't care. I'll keep saying it and saying it, until eventually, years from now, somebody who needs to hear it, will hear it.
agent-kay 18 hours ago
Comment deletednonozone 21 hours ago
Comment deletedmark124mj a day ago
Comment deletedvomayank a day ago
Comment deletedaaabbbb 17 hours ago
Comment deletedjerukmangga a day ago
Comment deletedrapidslug a day ago
Comment deletedneuzhou a day ago
Comment deletedcookiengineer a day ago
And on their pricing page they offer all plugins as a bundle for 0 USD per year! What a steal! /s
Don't click on this, I would assume it may contain malware: https://essentialplugin[.]com/pricing/
EGreg 2 days ago
photochemsyn a day ago
nullbyte 2 days ago
cold_tom a day ago
2 days ago
Comment deleted