

Wordpress 2.1.1 Release Compromised by Cracker 48
GrumpySimon writes "The recent 2.1.1 release of the popular blog software Wordpress was compromised by a cracker who made it easier for to execute code remotely. This is interesting because the official release was quietly and subtly compromised, and has been in the wild for a few days now. There's no word on if any affected sites have been compromised, but anyone running Wordpress is urged to upgrade to 2.1.2 immediately, and admins can check their logs for access to 'theme.php' or 'feed.php', and query strings with 'ix=' or 'iz=' in them."
Re:Damn crazy crackahs. (Score:5, Funny)
I thought the politically-correct term for "cracker" was "caucasian-american"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A very, very naughty boy who does wicked, wicked things to other peoples' computers, and brags about it on websites with black backgrounds and green text. Used to mean programmer, but doesn't any more. The old meaning is still used by old programmers living in the past, and by new programmers wishing to associate themselves with both programmers and naughty boys simultaneously. Nobody who calls themselves a "hacker" or refers to their activities as "hacking" is worth any of your time or money, no m
Re: (Score:2)
Clever except that "hacking" predates software coding as a trade and calling certain folks "Crackers" predates both.
Nicely formatted tho'.
Re: (Score:1)
PHP and certificates (Score:2)
Makes me wonder if the PHP VM could do a hash of the application code and compare that with a certificate from the source of the application. I know that the injected code in this case would have been certified, but it would make it easier to identify sites which had not been upgraded.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't that a job for the app? (Score:2)
But really, I don't think this accomplishes a hell of a lot. It wouldn't help you know which ones haven't been updated, for one thing...
NO (Score:2)
So what? (Score:2)
If you put it in the app, there's at least a chance it'll be done right by some library that everyone ends up using. If you put it in the interpreter, the interpreter gets crufty for everyone, including people who don't care about source code signing, and people who might have a legitimate reason for implementing it a little differently.
Or, let me make this very simple: If we were talking about C, would you be in favor of including it in the operating system? Or the C compiler?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
on every page request?
I can imagine that slowing requests down a bit.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Don't like the stories? Then take a drink from the FireHose [slashdot.org] and mod up the contributions that interest you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes Slashdot "more real", according to Taco!
Key Details (Score:5, Informative)
From the article, and from some comparisons I did on the downloads:
I still had the tar archive of 2.1.1 from when I grabbed it the day of the release, so I compared its contents to the 2.1.2 archive. The two files mentioned in the announcement, feed.php and theme.php, aren't any different, confirming that the initial release was unaffected. That's also where I saw the changes for that XSS bug.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, sorry.
It only confirms that your copy of the initial release was unaffected. Someone could have come along right after your download and pipped things so that anyone in line right after you received the dirty diaper.
"If you downloaded 2.1.1 when it was first released, it's probably okay. "
'if'...? Everyone should update - it's the only safe and practical response, rather than chancing things on an 'if'.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. In this case, the WP folks seem certain it was compromised within the last four days, but you're right, my data point doesn't confirm anything later than whatever time of day it was on Feb. 21.
What I was trying to say was that what I've seen is at least consistent with the timeline th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
(That is, if the cracker that did this wasn't able to generate an attack on the md5, it would have mitigated the consequences(assuming somebody bothered to check))
Re: (Score:2)
So while the hash is there, probably only 1% of downloaders would even see that it exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cracker (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
I hope they catch the worthless sack of shit that did it, too bad that probably wont happen.
Re: (Score:1)
Also update your.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is always a major concern for OSS projects (Score:2, Insightful)
OSS releases should be GPG signed by now, unless the attacker can compromise the key we're then left with tampering in the repository.
Suggestion:GPG! (Score:1)
What about Wordpress mu? (Score:2)
Doesn't matter, WP can't handle heavy loads. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)