|
|
|
|
|
by mschuster91
894 days ago
|
|
Whoa, there's a lot of stuff in there [1] that gets installed straight from vendors, without pinning content checksums to a value known-good to Github. I get it, they want to have the latest versions instead of depending on how long Ubuntu (or, worse, Debian) package maintainers take to package stuff into their mainline repositories... but creating this attack surface is nuts. Imagine being able to compromise just one of the various small tools they embed, and pivoting from there to all GitHub runners everywhere (e.g. by overwriting /bin/bash or any other popular entrypoint, or even libc itself, with a malware payload). [1] https://github.com/actions/runner-images/tree/main/images/ub... |
|
The balance there is overwhelmingly in favor of usability and having new tools (hence the 1 week deployment cadence). Maybe there is some process they have to go over everything before it makes it into the production pool, but that’s quite an undertaking to perform properly every week.