How Cloudflare responded to the “Copy Fail” Linux vulnerability

skinfaxi

Would love to learn more about their internal behavioural detection program. > One of the first things our security team did was confirm that our existing endpoint detection would catch this exploit. Our servers run behavioral detection that continuously monitors process execution patterns. It doesn't rely on knowing about specific vulnerabilities; it watches for anomalous behavior across the fleet.

john_strinlai

this is a techincal dive into how cloudflare responded, not a confirmation that they responded for whatever reason, unknown to me, hn automatically strips "how" from the start of titles. i cant remember ever seeing a title where this was an improvement.

dboreham

The "Hunting for Exploitation" section is unclear to me: "The exploit leaves a distinctive trace in kernel logs when it runs." Hmm. Wouldn't a system with a compromised kernel also log exactly what the attacker wanted logged?

srcreigh

It’s fascinating that already had a system which could identify the exploit at runtime. How can I learn more about that?

sammy2255

Any Cloudflare employees reading this, your network map has a few PoPs missing from it https://www.cloudflare.com/network/ notably, Perth (PER) Australia. Hobart (HBA) Australia. Wellington (WLG), New Zealand. Christchurch (CHC), New Zealand. Nausori (SUV), Fiji.

cube00

> At the time of the "Copy Fail" disclosure, the majority of our infrastructure was running the 6.12 LTS version That could be as low as 50.1%, I wish they'd provide an actual percentage.

jmclnx

> Linux kernel build based on the community's Long-Term Support (LTS) CopyFail only highlights why Companies want LTS. If there was a supported kernel built prior to 2017, most large companies would still be on that version, avoiding this issue all-together. The corporate mindset is usually "never upgrade unless there is new hardware needed or critical software failure". All CopyFail did was reinforce that mindset. I wonder if CopyFail will cause enterprises put pressure on the Linux Foundation to maintain a "ultra LTS" were it is supported for 20 years ?

PunchyHamster

for us it was * Get list of modules from Puppet's facts, confirm module isn't used anywhere (it wasn't) * `install algif_aead /bin/false` in /etc/modprobe.d/disable-algif.conf * Run a check using exploit code to check it is no longer working I imagine CF runs more stuff that could use it I guess but apparently it's not often used API

mkj

If they're already running a custom Linux kernel build, why did they have AF_ALG enabled? Seems the perfect situation to limit features to only those actually being used.

electra2012

> Despite our practice of deploying Linux patch updates every two weeks, we remained vulnerable because a month-old mainline fix had yet to be backported to our primary kernel line. Hopefully a wake-up call to those who believe older distro LTS kernels are getting all the security fixes Canonical and Redhat would want you to believe.

cluckindan

Has anyone figured out whether this CVE was intentional?

tptacek

This is an interesting post from Cloudflare, as usual, but it's not clear to me why they would have been vulnerable to CopyFail. Did I miss the point in this blog where that's addressed? What triggered the threat hunting and mitigation exploit? At what points in their architecture were they reliant on Linux user-based access control?