this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
247 points (98.8% liked)
Programming
25718 readers
165 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I do kind of wonder about the emacs package management infrastructure system.
Text editors with plugin support as potential vectors of malware is a pretty well known problem. It's why at the very least organisations should be auditing the plugins used and actively monitoring them.
Well now I'm nervous! My first instinct though is that the vast majority of Emacs packages are plain elisp, and Emacs users have a habit of cracking open and tinkering with their packages, so any malicious code ought to be spotted quickly.
With the native compiled modules however, it could be another story...
Someone almost managed to inject a vulnerability into the source code for sshd. They planned it for years, and it was only caught because someone noticed unusually high network traffic. Any vulnerability into a core package like that could be massive. Notepad++ is a little smaller, but this is still one of the bigger hacks of the decade.
You're probably thinking of the Jia Tan attack on xz; because of a distro patch in Debian, code in xz had the ability to affect sshd. The changes weren't actually to the sshd source, but trying to use an obscure route to affect sshd.