this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
214 points (95.0% liked)

Technology

59166 readers
2005 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
214
Data from deleted GitHub repos may not really be deleted (www.theregister.com)
submitted 3 months ago by lemmee_in@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Researchers at Truffle Security have found, or arguably rediscovered, that data from deleted GitHub repositories (public or private) and from deleted copies (forks) of repositories isn't necessarily deleted.

Joe Leon, a security researcher with the outfit, said in an advisory on Wednesday that being able to access deleted repo data – such as APIs keys – represents a security risk. And he proposed a new term to describe the alleged vulnerability: Cross Fork Object Reference (CFOR).

"A CFOR vulnerability occurs when one repository fork can access sensitive data from another fork (including data from private and deleted forks)," Leon explained.

For example, the firm showed how one can fork a repository, commit data to it, delete the fork, and then access the supposedly deleted commit data via the original repository.

The researchers also created a repo, forked it, and showed how data not synced with the fork continues to be accessible through the fork after the original repo is deleted. You can watch that particular demo.

all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 53 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Oh god. That means all the spaghetti code that I ever wrote is still out there.

[–] radivojevic@discuss.online 21 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yup. Along with the code from huge organizations. I always thought it was funny that people put their code online, blindly trusting some random company that got gobbled up by Microsoft.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Along with every private key that was accidentally committed.

[–] radivojevic@discuss.online 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ha ha, way way back in the day when I didn’t understand how keys worked, I sent a private key to another developer when they asked for my public. They were kind enough to educate me.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works -3 points 3 months ago

As a lifelong troll, I would've just generated a new pub key and made a bunch of commits as you. Then two days later, I would tell you what's up once you had time to process the confusion.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Your point is valid, but many (most?) enterprises don't use a forking worlflow, so I suspect open source projects will be hit harder, sadly

[–] Cosmos7349@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not only just out there. I am regenerating your spaghetti code into a new context with copilot 🧑‍✈️ Your (ai-regenerated) code will be driving our military nuclear launch code base! Congratulations!

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your (ai-regenerated) code will be driving our military nuclear launch code base!

What's so difficult about writing code that checks if you have 8 zeroes?

https://gizmodo.com/for-20-years-the-nuclear-launch-code-at-us-minuteman-si-1473483587

[–] Cosmos7349@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Oh I'm just the cleaning guy, so I don't really know how to code it myself. We laid off all the developers three weeks ago.

[–] SpaghettiYeti@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

My people!

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 33 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This is not a GitHub issue. It's a GIT feature. People are always going to clone your repo.

[–] Morphit@feddit.uk 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well, sort of. GitHub certainly could refuse to render orphan commits. They pop up a banner saying so but I don't see why they should show the commit at all. They could still keep the data until it's garbage collected since a user might re-upload the commit in a new branch.

This seems like a non-issue though since someone who hasn't already seen the disclosed information would need to somehow determine the hash of the deleted commit.

[–] Morphit@feddit.uk 8 points 3 months ago

Ah - Actually reading the article reveals why this is actually an issue:

What's more, Ayrey explained, you don't even need the full identifying hash to access the commit. "If you know the first four characters of the identifier, GitHub will almost auto-complete the rest of the identifier for you," he said, noting that with just sixty-five thousand possible combinations for those characters, that's a small enough number to test all the possibilities.

So enumerating all the orphan commits wouldn't be that hard.

In any case if a secret has been publicly disclosed, you should always assume it's still out there. For sure, rotate your keys.

[–] best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Forks do not exist in git. It's a GitHub feature, and a massive blunder at the same time.

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yes they exist. It's called a clone

[–] arcuru@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The article is specifically about how GitHub forks are not the same as a git clone. A clone isn’t accessible from the upstream without the upstream pulling the changes, but this vulnerability points out that a fork on GitHub is accessible from the upstream without a pull, even if the fork is private.

It’s because GitHub under the hood doesn’t actually do a real clone so that they can save on disk usage.

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 0 points 3 months ago

You actually can't turn a fork private on github

[–] best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How can such a wrong answer get so many points? Clones and forge forks are unrelated. First, GitHub or GitLab cannot and could not link clones together without analyzing the remotes of each clone.

FFS it's a tech community...

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu -3 points 3 months ago

Because you are the one being wrong. Github and others only provide a nice interface around clones. That's all there is, and it doesn't matter much

[–] kernelle@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

So many OpenAI keys!