pymyq VS nixpkgs

Maybe my security background is shining through here. I guess we used to have "slashdotting" but that doesn't generalize well :)

I did do some napkin math to quantify how much that bad traffic may have been: HA estimates between 6857-25576 intallations of the MyQ integration. Let's say 16k clients. HA makes it really easy to detect and "add" the integration (which counts as an installation even if it's not configured), so, that's definitely not all clients hitting the API. Let's say it's 50%, so 8k actually using it. Most users just notice myQ is broken. Let's say some fraction retry, which would look the same as an extra user from a volume perspective. Call it an even 10k users (including repeat users).

The most recent change is after they broke everything past the OAuth dance. Let's say the OAuth request is 1kB. The retry code retries up to 5 times with exponential backoff. Let's say 5 requests over 10 min.

(5 requests / 10 minutes) * 1 request/user * 10k users = 5k requests/minute, or 83 per second, amounting to 83kB/s inbound.

There's no reason to assume those requests would synchronize, but I'm sure there's something (let's say every single myQ user updated at the same time).

If what they're saying is true, sounds like actually malicious botnet wielders can ransom the living daylights out of them. Given 1Tbs DDoS attacks they'd only need 6E-7 of the full bore ion cannon! ;-)

[1]: https://github.com/arraylabs/pymyq/blob/master/pymyq/request...

This will drop you into a shell where `tracexec` is installed.

[1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/310158

I don't think so. The article is probably intended for the Nix community, so the author doesn't need to convince HN that something is going on. If as an outsider you are interested then you need to look into it yourself, the community has no obligation to make their internal conflicts legible to the outside world.

As an outsider myself, it certainly looks like something is going on as more than 20 Nixpkg maintainers left in a week: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=label%3A%228.has%3...

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commits?author=neon-sunset

I see two signers in the top 6 displayed on https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/graphs/contributors

For a single file script, nix can make the package management quite easy: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/doc/languages-f...

For example,

```

Yes, Nix doesn't actually ensure that the builds are deterministic. In fact it works just fine if they aren't. There are packages in nixpkgs that aren't reproducible: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aiss...

I'm not familiar with Bazel, but Nix in it's current form wouldn't have solved this attack. First of all, the standard mkDerivation function calls the same configure; make; make install process that made this attack possible. Nixpkgs regularly pulls in external resources (fetchUrl and friends) that are equally vulnerable to a poisoned release tarball. Checkout the comment on the current xz entry in nixpkgs https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/tools/comp...

NixOS uses a monorepo and I think everyone's love it.

I love being able to easily grep through all the packages source code and there's regularly PRs that harmonizes conventions across many packages.

Nixpkgs doesn't include the packaged software source code, so it's a lot more practical than what Debian is doing.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs