> Why use a raw IP address? If anything, this screams “malware.”
If the victim is deep enough to check hook's content, it's unlikely they will just stop here losing suspicion. I'm sure most devs wouldn't think that doing `git commit` can be malicious (git security oversight?).
Silently only because @OP is not running Little Snitch (or the equivalent on Windows/Linux).
I’m in the habit of running `tree -a` or the more modern `erd --hidden` but in this case I wouldn’t have needed to, and I wouldn’t have had to audit the scripts either. Little Snitch would have popped up an alert the moment cURL tried to reach that remote server, which is obviously suspicious, and I would have ended the “interview” right there.
> 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the Internet Users' Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.
> 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
> Side note: Why use a raw IP address? If anything, this screams “malware.” At least register a decoy domain like lint-checker.com or jenkins-ci-runner.net. If the threat actors who wrote this are reading: take notes people!
Maybe they don't want to give any identifying info to the domain registrar? Or just minimizing their online presence?
If LinkedIn actually cared about preventing scams, they could implement verification using company emails if you want to list your current employment. And if it is too much of a heavy burden, then at the minimum you should have it as an optional feature that recruiters would have to comply with, if they want to be legitimate.
My takeaway from this is that I should use the same defense as when someone calls you "from you bank". When they reach out directly, go to the real company's site to apply and contact a real recruiter. If you can't validate that the business is legit before, then assume malfeasance.
Companies make this hard, a bit like various email scams where legit company communication comes from seemingly random domains (hello paypal). Often the company is legit, but theres no public contact that knows anything about the recruiter thats working for them.
Healthcare companies are the WORST at this - they will send you legitimate email from h34lthc4re.biz with a heart-happy-health.phishing.info link that you HAVE to use - and it's all legit.
Even if the attempt is legit, going to the company’s website/careers page to try and reach them is pointless. You application will just get lost among the thousands of others. Your best bet is to ask the recruiter to email you and check for a @<company.com> email address. And even if the attempt checks out don’t run untrusted code on your machine.
I'm not talking about switching to cold contacting companies as a job hunting strategy. I'm saying if you get a suspicious outreach from a rando on linked in on behalf of a company THEN you only continue if you can reach out to the same person via official company channels.
Are these kinds of tests still relevant in the AI age? Genuine question, I have not interviewed for a very long time. They seem as useful as take home college exams.
Really hate that the USG overreaction on Fable has given us a neutered version of AIs for DEFENSIVE capabilities even when we just want an explanation of what we’re being subjected to with this malware.
If the victim is deep enough to check hook's content, it's unlikely they will just stop here losing suspicion. I'm sure most devs wouldn't think that doing `git commit` can be malicious (git security oversight?).
Seems like this is becoming a recurring theme, similar story was on the front page last month.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48546294
Silently only because @OP is not running Little Snitch (or the equivalent on Windows/Linux).
I’m in the habit of running `tree -a` or the more modern `erd --hidden` but in this case I wouldn’t have needed to, and I wouldn’t have had to audit the scripts either. Little Snitch would have popped up an alert the moment cURL tried to reach that remote server, which is obviously suspicious, and I would have ended the “interview” right there.
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html
> 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the Internet Users' Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.
> 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
Unrelated to this git pre commit hook attack but yeah
Maybe they don't want to give any identifying info to the domain registrar? Or just minimizing their online presence?
they added this back in 2023 (https://news.linkedin.com/2023/april/linkedin-s-new-verifica...), but very less people actually bother to verify with their email, so not having it doesn't always mean it's illegitimate.
Looks like these folks really did their homework.
It's nasty, but I have to respect their skills. I'll bet it works, quite often.
I suspect it's clever, experienced, engineers, leveraging LLMs.
I'm not talking about switching to cold contacting companies as a job hunting strategy. I'm saying if you get a suspicious outreach from a rando on linked in on behalf of a company THEN you only continue if you can reach out to the same person via official company channels.
Give defenders a better shot…
should i remove it?
there is no place for fun, whimsy, moods, or personalization on the web. sorry.
(no, at least not at the request of random internet stranger #10545346)
I joke, anyway, and bear the downvotes. Totally worth it.