6 comments

  • sdcfgy 3 minutes ago
    Reminds me of Theo DeRaadt again: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119318909016582
  • msm_ 26 minutes ago
    Wow, this is serious. Makes you think, that even though QubesOS attack surface is so tiny (well-designed to be secure) there are still vulnerabilities to be found.

    Worth noting that (as I understand) this vulnerability occurs only when doing copy-to-VM from Dom0:

    >Note that the VM variant of `qvm-copy-to-vm` is not affected, as its version of the error reporting function does not use `system()`:

    Since you should not use Dom0 for regular work, and definitely not for interacting with likely-to-be-infected VMs, the scope of this attack is smaller than it sounds. On the flip side, when it works, it elevates privileges straight to Dom0.

  • zby 1 hour ago
    I am still impressed by QubesOS track and I use it for my dedicated 'financials' laptop.

    IMHO the thing that is holding back QubesOS is the lack of hardware acceleration for graphics - maybe now when dual monitor setups are getting popular this could be a workaround for the security considerations?

    • jwrallie 56 minutes ago
      I dropped QubesOS once exactly for that reason in the past but now I’m running it again on a separate computer.

      Even with all its drawbacks, there is something really nice about being able to run different applications over Tor, VPN or plain internet simultaneously, the ability to isolate non-safe binaries and being able to backup your VMs easily.

      I wish a similar distro would be made based on KVM so that the standard kernel could be used. It would be great for compatibility.

    • artyomsv 7 minutes ago
      [dead]
  • polotics 1 hour ago
    I'm still very impressed by qubes, and glad I'm not such a target that I feel I need the level of opsec it affords (on all my laptops).

    Maybe someday AI-assisted killchains will be so widespread that Qubes is the minimal level for the (few?) still-local users of compute.

    I would not have copied anything from dom0 to any another qube, the impact is low.

  • TacticalCoder 24 minutes ago
    I do really like the following in the bulletin:

    > Important: At this point, you still don’t know whether the key you just imported is the genuine QMSK or a forgery. In order for this entire procedure to provide meaningful security benefits, you must authenticate the QMSK out-of-band. Do not skip this step! The standard method is to obtain the QMSK fingerprint from multiple independent sources in several different ways and check to see whether they match the key you just imported. For more information, see How to import and authenticate the Qubes Master Signing Key.

    It looks like Qubes is ran by people who take security seriously, which is refreshing.

    • leonidasrup 4 minutes ago
      How well is QMSK protected from a serious attacker?
  • charcircuit 1 hour ago
    Another example for why system() is so dangerous to use.

    I also don't understand why it needs to show the dialog in dom0. If you have the option to handle attacker controlled input on the unprivileged side, you should do that instead of putting a lot of logic on the privileged side.

    • delamon 1 hour ago
      The code is sloppy. They check existance of kdialog binary using full path; next step they rely on PATH search by shell. If would've been much safer to just do execve directly.
    • HackerThemAll 1 hour ago
      > why it needs to show the dialog in dom0

      I think it's the "secure screen" that cannot be manipulated by the malware in a VM. I'd expect a password entry dialog to also be handled like that.

      • charcircuit 55 minutes ago
        It's for an the "File copy/move error" error dialog.