this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
360 points (99.7% liked)
Technology
80273 readers
3626 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
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
Expanding on this: the exploit was against their domain name, redirecting selected update requests away from the notepad++ servers. The software itself didn't validate that the domain actually points to notepad++ servers, and the notepad++ update servers would not see any information that would tell them what was happening.
Likely they picked some specific developers with a known public IP, and only used this to inject those specific people with malware.
So the solution would have been an SSL certificate check on the client side.
That's what they say they rolled out, after: "Within Notepad++ itself, WinGup (the updater) was enhanced in v8.8.9 to verify both the certificate and the signature of the downloaded installer"
Can't tell if that would have helped
They could have just piped the binaries though the same server since they had this level of access. They would have had months to figure it out.
Oof, I thought it was just a DNS hijack. If they had access to the server, it's game over regardless.
It's not game over regardless if the updater checks a signature of the update installer. Them it wouldn't run an installer by someone else.
That's true, assuming they didn't also put their private keys on the server
As the hoster wrote this:
It looks like the binaries and the update check script were put on a simple web space. If that is the correct conclusion to draw from this excerpt, then it'd be rather strange to have the keys on that server as it's very unlikely that it was used to produce any builds.