When the xz backdoor was discovered, I quickly uninstalled my Arch based setup with an infected version of the software and switched to a distro that shipped an older version (5.5 or 5.4 or something). I found an article which said that in 5.6.1-3 the backdoor was “fixed” by just not letting the malware part communicating with the vulnerable ssh related stuff and the actual malware is still there? (I didn’t understand 80% of the technical terms and abbreviations in it ok?) Like it still sounds kinda dangerous to me, especially since many experts say that we don’t know the other ways this malware can use (except for the ssh supply chain) yet. Is it true? Should I stick with the new distro for now or can I absolutely safely switch back and finally say that I use Arch btw again?

P. S. I do know that nothing is completely safe. Here I’m asking just about xz and libxzlk or whatever the name of that library is

EDIT: 69 upvotes. Nice

  • BaalInvokerA
    27·
    9 months ago

    Well, until someone find a new backdoor, I call it safe again

    I’ll not lose my mental health to a potentially and unknown shady backdoor that could be installed or not in a lib

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        23·
        9 months ago

        What about all the unknown back doors in the old versions 👻

      • Strit@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show
        22·
        9 months ago

        If you worry about potential other backdoors in newer XZ versions, then you should also look into your kernel, systemd, dbus etc etc. All these things, can potentially contain backdoors that no one knows about yet.

        As for currently known backdoors, the Arch versions are safe.

        • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.mlOP
          46·
          9 months ago

          Of course backdoors can be anywhere. I was worried about this one especially because somewhere I read that the malicious code wasn’t removed but just restricted with some hacky stuff in 5.6.1-3. It turned out to be false, at least for Arch, so, in case the new information is true, I can switch back I guess. Using a “safe” version of Arch is better than running all the apps as Flatpaks that can still have the infected version of xz libraries as dependencied anyways

      • BaalInvokerA
        4·
        9 months ago

        Well, I guess u have your answer, tho

        The important thing here is to feel good with your decision

      • bizdelnick@lemmy.ml
        2·
        9 months ago

        So you need to downgrade to even earlier version. Best of all, use a fork created by Joey Hess.

          • bizdelnick@lemmy.ml
            1·
            9 months ago

            I don’t know for sure, it depends on changes in the liblzma API. If there were any changes (backward compatible or not, usually nobody cares about forward compatibility), yes, recompiling is required.

      • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
        1·
        9 months ago

        This is the reason I keep an OpenBSD system around. Maybe it’s a false sense of security, but I feel that they are pickier about the base system at least.

          • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
            2·
            9 months ago

            Afaik, no. Worth mentioning is that the fundamental design of the major BSDs is to clearly separate the core OS from third party applications. But as far as just being able to use Flathub or similar, I don’t think so. If any BSD has experimented in that direction my bet would be FreeBSD.