zlacker

[parent] [thread] 47 comments
1. edb_12+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-02 04:18:23
So, let me get this straight. If I've been lazy, postponed updates and I'm still on 8.5.8 (Oct 2023) - it turns out I'm actually...safer?

Anyway, I hope the author can be a bit more specific about what actually has happened to those unlucky enough to have received these malicious updates. And perhaps a tool to e.g. do a checksum of all Notepad++ files, and compare them to the ones of a verified clean install of the user's installed version, would be a start? Though I would assume these malicious updates would be clever enough to rather have dropped and executed additional files, rather than doing something with the Notepad++ binaries themselves.

And I agree with another comment here. With all those spelling mistakes that notification kind of reads like it could have been written by a state-sponsored actor. Not to be (too) paranoid here, but can we be sure that this is the actual author, and that the new version isn't the malicious one?

replies(10): >>hinkle+n >>user39+07 >>FpUser+z8 >>FatalL+2a >>otherm+Vc >>tasuki+eg >>1vuio0+lc1 >>beache+yi1 >>bulbar+Hz1 >>jollyl+yc9
2. hinkle+n[view] [source] 2026-02-02 04:23:11
>>edb_12+(OP)
This reminds me of college, when some of my professors were still sorting out their curriculum and would give us homework assignments with bugs in it.

I complained many times that they were enabling my innate procrastination by proving over and over again that starting the homework early meant you would get screwed. Every time I'd wait until the people in the forum started sounding optimistic before even looking at the problem statement.

I still think I'd like to have a web of trust system where I let my friends try out software updates first before I do, and my relatives let me try them out before they do.

replies(5): >>ozim+t4 >>Nition+S4 >>greazy+ut >>skeled+vY >>dec0de+Hd1
◧◩
3. ozim+t4[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 05:06:04
>>hinkle+n
For windows updates r/sysadmin has people who run updates and post their experience on patch Tuesday.
replies(1): >>Melato+Hd
◧◩
4. Nition+S4[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 05:10:29
>>hinkle+n
Ah, I remember those days. One that wasn't an error exactly was an assignment that had a word limit of 2000 words or something. I'd written maybe 3000 words and spent quite some time cutting it down, getting it to just under the limit. Then someone else who also wrote too many words asked the professor if that was okay and they sent out an update to everyone saying it's fine to ignore the word limit.
replies(2): >>nxpnsv+57 >>whywhy+Tr
5. user39+07[view] [source] 2026-02-02 05:33:18
>>edb_12+(OP)
If there’s anything I’ve learned from IBM, Red Hat, and CentOS, it’s that bleeding edge is actually what I’m supposed to want.
◧◩◪
6. nxpnsv+57[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 05:35:54
>>Nition+S4
So you accidentally learned how to edit a text? Sounds like a win to me…
replies(1): >>Nition+u7
◧◩◪◨
7. Nition+u7[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 05:40:21
>>nxpnsv+57
That's a nice positive way to view it. I would even say that was probably intended as a feature of the original assignment brief.
8. FpUser+z8[view] [source] 2026-02-02 05:56:02
>>edb_12+(OP)
8.4.7 here. phew
replies(1): >>topspi+99
◧◩
9. topspi+99[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 06:02:19
>>FpUser+z8
8.5.7 here (built Sept 6, 2023)

Now I need to worry about this one. I've been anxious about vscode lately: apparently vscode extensions are a dumpster fire of compromises.

10. FatalL+2a[view] [source] 2026-02-02 06:10:56
>>edb_12+(OP)
>I'm still on 8.5.8 (Oct 2023) - it turns out I'm actually...safer?

Notepad++ site says The incident began from June 2025.

On their downloads page, 8.8.2 was the first update in June 2025 (the previous update 8.8.1 was released 2025-05-05)

So, if your installed version is 8.8.1 or lower, then you should be safe. Assuming that they're right about when the incident began.

edit: Notepad++ has published, on Github, SHA256 hashes of all the binaries for all download versions, which should let users check if they were targeted, if they still have the downloaded file. 8.8.1 is here, for example - https://github.com/notepad-plus-plus/notepad-plus-plus/relea...

replies(2): >>z3t4+Zi >>Joysti+QG
11. otherm+Vc[view] [source] 2026-02-02 06:44:42
>>edb_12+(OP)
> And perhaps a tool to e.g. do a checksum of all Notepad++ files, and compare them to the ones of a verified clean install of the user's installed version, would be a start?

Did I understand the attack wrongly? The software could have a 100% correct checksum, because the attack happened in a remote machine that deals with call home events from Notepad++, I guess one of those "Telemetry" add-ons. The attackers did a MITM to Notepad++ traffic.

replies(1): >>tempes+Se
◧◩◪
12. Melato+Hd[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 06:54:41
>>ozim+t4
You can delay by a week or two very easily and automatically as well
◧◩
13. tempes+Se[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 07:08:52
>>otherm+Vc
The remote machine that was compromised was responsible for Notepad++ updates, so the concern is that it could cause a compromised version of the software to be installed. But if it could do that, it could probably cause anything to be installed anywhere on the user's machine, so inspecting the installed N++ binary probably wouldn't be too useful.
replies(1): >>7bit+PF
14. tasuki+eg[view] [source] 2026-02-02 07:21:44
>>edb_12+(OP)
> So, let me get this straight. If I've been lazy, postponed updates and I'm still on 8.5.8 (Oct 2023) - it turns out I'm actually...safer?

Is this surprising? My model is that keeping with the new versions is generally more dangerous than sticking with an old version, unless that old version has specific known and exploitable vulnerabilities.

replies(2): >>illiac+kh >>slumbe+eJ
◧◩
15. illiac+kh[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 07:34:44
>>tasuki+eg
Yes, it is very much atypical. Most hacks happen because admins still haven’t applied a 2 years old patch. I hate updates, but it‘s statistically safer that running an old software version. Try exposing a windows XP to the internet and watch how long it takes before it‘s hacked.
replies(5): >>card_z+Ai >>tasuki+1Z >>bulbar+oB1 >>pibake+4E2 >>thegri+lB3
◧◩◪
16. card_z+Ai[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 07:48:06
>>illiac+kh
Debatable. "I connected Windows XP to the Internet; it was fine" - >>40528117

One comment there points out that XP is old enough for infected attack vectors to have all died out. I dunno.

replies(3): >>illiac+yk >>bigfat+Km >>expedi+JE
◧◩
17. z3t4+Zi[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 07:54:03
>>FatalL+2a
Older download links doesn't seem to work!?
◧◩◪◨
18. illiac+yk[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 08:09:52
>>card_z+Ai
https://www.tomshardware.com/software/windows/idle-windows-x...

But good we are talking about my point rather than than the example.

replies(1): >>badsec+Vo
◧◩◪◨
19. bigfat+Km[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 08:34:01
>>card_z+Ai
I experienced this first hand in 2014. We got to a point where drive-by exploit kits just weren’t shipping IE8, Java 6 or Windows XP payloads anymore.
◧◩◪◨⬒
20. badsec+Vo[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 09:02:03
>>illiac+yk
> YouTuber Eric Parker demonstrated in a recent video how dangerous it is to connect classic Windows operating systems

The video referenced in that article explicitly connects directly to the internet, using a VPN to bypass any ISP and router protections and most importantly disables any protections WinXP itself has.

So yeah, if you really go out of your way to disable all security protections, you may have a problem.

replies(2): >>conorc+cB >>illiac+pI1
◧◩◪
21. whywhy+Tr[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 09:34:30
>>Nition+S4
You were working within the system of academia, the other student in the system of the real world.
◧◩
22. greazy+ut[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 09:49:37
>>hinkle+n
I work in a lab as an analyst (bioinformatician), we are register and pay for quality assurance programs that contain an embarrassing about of technical errors.
replies(1): >>wiethe+Ou
◧◩◪
23. wiethe+Ou[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 10:03:56
>>greazy+ut
> an embarrassing about of technical errors

amount? ;)

replies(3): >>Gander+yv >>hinkle+zj3 >>greazy+q3e
◧◩◪◨
24. Gander+yv[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 10:11:11
>>wiethe+Ou
Number?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
25. conorc+cB[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 11:06:40
>>badsec+Vo
Like leaving the lid off of my typewriter at lunchtime :-o
◧◩◪◨
26. expedi+JE[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 11:42:55
>>card_z+Ai
Anyone else noticed that we don't even GET patch notes anymore?

"Fixed some bugs" Yes thank you very helpful that! Now I can make a very informed decision.

replies(1): >>latexr+hj2
◧◩◪
27. 7bit+PF[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 11:51:37
>>tempes+Se
Checksums are useless in this case. The binary would have to be signed and the installation routine would have to check that the new binary would have been signed with the certificate. That adds complexity, but would have thwarted this specific attempt.

However, there are ways around this, too. No solution is perfect.

◧◩
28. Joysti+QG[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 12:00:02
>>FatalL+2a
Just checked my 8.7.9 that I installed in April 2025 and never updated. The hash seems to be identical to the version I installed around that time. Seems like it was a good choice to always skip the Update Dialog when using Notepad++ lol.
◧◩
29. slumbe+eJ[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 12:23:00
>>tasuki+eg
Steve from Security Now podcast has been specifically using Notepad++ as an example of not being able to leave good enough alone for years now. Can't wait to hear him claim his told you so next week.

Love notepad++ and will continue to use it.

◧◩
30. skeled+vY[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 13:58:45
>>hinkle+n
> let my friends try out software updates first before I do

And who do they let try the software before they do? And so on... Where does it ended?

replies(2): >>timbit+jF1 >>hinkle+jj3
◧◩◪
31. tasuki+1Z[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 14:01:44
>>illiac+kh
I don't know about Windows, but I've been running all kinds of outdated Linux (Debian mostly) and it never once caused a security problem.
replies(1): >>pxc+271
◧◩◪◨
32. pxc+271[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 14:46:58
>>tasuki+1Z
Debian backports security patches.
33. 1vuio0+lc1[view] [source] 2026-02-02 15:17:13
>>edb_12+(OP)
"So, let me get this straight. If I've been lazy, postponed updates and I'm still on 8.5.8 (Oct 2023) - it turns out I'm actually...safer?"

This is true for a large number of software "security" issues

A software version earlier in date/time is not necessarily inferior (or superior) to a version later in date/time

As it is "updated" or rewritten,, software can become worse instead of better, or vice versa, for a vaariety of reasons

Checking software's release date, or enabling/allowing "automatic updates" is not a substitute for reading source code and evaluating software on the merits

◧◩
34. dec0de+Hd1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 15:23:47
>>hinkle+n
They should have just gave out extra credit for finding bugs.
replies(1): >>QuiEgo+Ts1
35. beache+yi1[view] [source] 2026-02-02 15:50:19
>>edb_12+(OP)
lol, im on 7.3.x for extra safety
◧◩◪
36. QuiEgo+Ts1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 16:36:22
>>dec0de+Hd1
I had a professor who did this. One letter grade bump *after curve* applied per assignment per bug found (reproduce case and fix required).

Loved that class.

37. bulbar+Hz1[view] [source] 2026-02-02 17:12:28
>>edb_12+(OP)
I disable auto update for everything that does not have direct contact with the Internet otherwise (mail app, browser, OS, router,...). Probability for some random app being exploited because updates were skipped is insignificant compared to the probability of a malicious update.

Updates are a direct connection from the Internet to your computer. You want to minimize that.

Just do a manual update from time to time.

◧◩◪
38. bulbar+oB1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 17:20:27
>>illiac+kh
It depends if the application itself touches the Internet or only when conducting updates.

The threat model for a server and for a personal computer are very different. On a consumer device, typically only the OS mail app and browser have direct contact with the outside world.

◧◩◪
39. timbit+jF1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 17:38:55
>>skeled+vY
There is always a fresh group of people who haven't learned that lesson yet acting as the guinea pigs.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
40. illiac+pI1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 17:54:16
>>badsec+Vo
That’s still the example, not my point.

My point is, statistically, it is more secure to install updates as fast as possible.

We can take another example: search for “shitrix”, there’s thousands more CVEs out there to use as example.

◧◩◪◨⬒
41. latexr+hj2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 20:42:45
>>expedi+JE
I hate that. “Bug fixes and improvements” every time. And then there are the ones who think they’re being cute with “our bird Fernando has been hard ar work eating those nasty bugs and flying over the rainbow to bring you an ever delightful experience”. Just, no. I don’t mind you flexing some creative writing muscles in your release notes if you provide actual clear information, but if you’re going to say nothing like everyone else, might as well use the same standard useless message so I can dismiss it quick.
◧◩◪
42. pibake+4E2[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-02 22:11:21
>>illiac+kh
To be fair I doubt there are that many people scanning for internet facing XPs in 2026.

On the other hand, any server running old, unpatched versions of apache or similar will get picked up by script kiddies scanning for publicly known vulns very, very fast.

The notepad++ attack is politically targeted and done through unconventional channels (compromise in the hosting provider). I don't think 99% of the people reading this thread has a comparable threat model.

◧◩◪
43. hinkle+jj3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 01:30:14
>>skeled+vY
There's a few months every year when I'm feeling brave or crazy. We could take turns.

The thing is that most supply chain attacks are going to hit you when you are least prepared to deal with them, because that's exactly how they get you. When you're distracted.

Upgrades are deep work, but the commands to start them feel like shallow work.

◧◩◪◨
44. hinkle+zj3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 01:31:12
>>wiethe+Ou
Autocorrect makes us all sound like jackasses these days. Have some pity.
◧◩◪
45. thegri+lB3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 03:44:37
>>illiac+kh
You assume that the old software version has critical vulnerabilities. If it does not, then yes, updating is more of a risk since the new versions are unknowns.
replies(1): >>illiac+LB3
◧◩◪◨
46. illiac+LB3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 03:48:42
>>thegri+lB3
My assumption is statistical. All software has critical vulnerabilities, not just the old ones. It’s just that these vulnerabilities are known, in the case of the old ones, which significantly increases the risk.
47. jollyl+yc9[view] [source] 2026-02-04 16:19:47
>>edb_12+(OP)
Yes, of course you're safer. If your system is working as desired, updates can only break it. This is just Engineering 101, but for whatever reason, all logic is abandoned on the topic of security updates.
◧◩◪◨
48. greazy+q3e[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 22:35:15
>>wiethe+Ou
Haha I laughed after reading your comment and mine.

Yep auto correct got me good.

[go to top]