Open Source

31220 readers

272 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

433

Ventoy source code contains some unknown BLOBs, still no word on the issue from the dev after months (github.com)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

136 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I had no idea this issue had been identified. While I find this tool very useful, the project is seeming rather questionable to me now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

The amount of malware you can cram in a source-code patch without drawing attention vs. in a binary is vastly different.

There's also the fact that if you want to ship binaries, you can just wget them from source during the build process. Not a perfect solution but much better than what's ventoy doing. The source code updates works the same in every project because it has to. That's why this is drawing more attention.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

That's ok if we are talking about malware publicly shown in the published source code.. but there's also the possibility of a private source-code patch with malware that it's secretly being applied when building the binaries for distribution. Having clean source code in the repo is not a guarantee that the source code is the same that was used to produce the binaries.

This is why it's important for builds to be reproducible, any third party should be able to build their own binary from clean source code and be able to obtain the exact same binary with the same hash. If the hashes match, then you have a proof of the binary being clean. You have this same problem with every single binary distribution, even the ones that don't include pre-compiled binaries in their repo.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The problem is not near enough projects support reproducible builds, and many that do aren't being regularly verified, at least publicly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes, that's why im saying that this kind of problem isn't something particular about this project.

In fact I'm not sure if it's the case that the builds aren't reproducible/verifiable for these binaries in ventoy. And if they aren't, then I think it's in the upstream projects where it should be fixed.

Of course ventoy should try to provide traceability for the specific versions they are using, but in principle I don't think it should be a problem to rely on those binaries if they are verifiable.. just the same way as we rely on binaries for many dynamic libraries in a lot of distributions. After all, Ventoy is closer to being an OS/distribution than a particular program.