CrowdSec Source Code Leak
76 points by eccgecko 4 hours ago | 26 comments

mewse-hn 2 hours ago
Funny to see this after I spent the morning troubleshooting and fixing my crowdsec install on my debian 13 vps. Apparently they stopped supplying a community blocklist to my machine because I'm running the old debian packaged version instead of directly from them (http 500). I had a LLM build a blocklist from publicly available sources rather than tie myself more tightly to their SaaS platform.
reply
getcrunk 46 minutes ago
Wait … that’s lame. If it’s in Debian repos I expect it to work with full functionality (up to the version number)

I can understand the myriad reasons for why a company would be inconvenienced by that.

But on the other hand, it seems like a reason for me to never use the vendor

reply
sandeepkd 4 hours ago
On the funny side, reading the website tagline, apparently they claim to know who is attacking you, they just happen to miss out on who attacked them.

Turns out they are not really a security company, just an aggregator of bad IPs. Ideally this kind of aggregator problem is best suited for a trusted not-for-profit company where providing the data needs some level of credibility and querying the data costs you nominal fee to keep the setup floating.

reply
Meneth 3 hours ago
I suppose CrowdSec isn't used to analyze GitHub's traffic, so they wouldn't have much info to go on.

If they had self-hosted their own repos, they might have had more luck.

reply
sandeepkd 3 hours ago
It wasn't the Github that was compromised, it was the access to their private repository that was compromised so somewhere down the line the security best practices are in question for sure. Self hosted repos available on public internet would have met the same fate, may be worse, given github does provides some level of security.

Even regarding the blast radius, I do not really believe any company is honest about it. They do not have tools to verify it, if the user information was accessed with leaked token or real token. The thing that works in their favor is that no one else can verify it either which absolves them from any responsibility. Any platform engineer knows that your CICD system has the keys to the kingdom.

reply
strictnein 3 hours ago
The article you're commenting on says how they were compromised.

> The thing that works in their favor is that no one else can verify it either which absolves them from any responsibility

That's not how this works, at all. You need to have enough evidence that you can confidently demonstrate that there is no sign of a broader breach. If you get sued and can't do that, you're in trouble, because being unable to do that shows that you were acting negligently.

reply
nicce 3 hours ago
GitHub Enterprise has at least some level audit log
reply
strictnein 3 hours ago
What, exactly, is the definition of a "security company" in your mind? Threat Intel companies definitely fall under that normally, so I'm curious what you think it is.

Also, the idea that this type of thing could just be stood up as a "not-for-profit" company and ran for peanuts is kind of silly. How would the nominal fee pay for the engineers and infrastructure? Or would this just be a volunteer effort and you'd like people to do this for free for you?

reply
sandeepkd 3 hours ago
Any company where understanding of security practices has a direct impact on its revenue from early phases can be considered as a security company in my view.

From what I have seen a large chunk of internet exists and stands on the shoulder of folks who did the volunteer work cause they were passionate about it and enjoyed that part. Once built, the nominal fee for API to check IP address should cover the costs way easily for the servers.

Letsencrypt is a great example, it did took away the big money from all these commercial CA's, who used to issue blue, green and what not kind of checkmarks. Thats one big reason reason why the migration to HTTPS happened faster.

reply
itintheory 3 hours ago
The basic software is open source, and the list is free if you're running the tool and contributing detections back. They do have some curated lists that you have to pay for.

It's quite a bit less expensive than most other commercial products of this kind that I've looked at.

reply
strictnein 3 hours ago
So I guess your answer is yes, you would like someone to do this work for you for free, because others have done other work for free. And then once the free work is done, you will happily pay a nominal fee to gain the benefit of all the free work?

> Any company where understanding of security practices has a direct impact on its revenue from early phases can be considered as a security company in my view.

This could, quite literally, be any company on earth then? But not CrowdSec, because they had a single security issue? Every company on earth has had those, including every security company.

reply
sandeepkd 3 hours ago
There is discussion and then there is argument. Discussion is more about sharing and learning where as argument becomes all about proving a point, specifically individuals targeted point of view.

My observation is generic and more about state of things rather than focusing on one entity.

Also lets not belittle the hard work by just labelling it out as free. If only money had been motivation for everyone then the world would have been a different place. And like a lot of people I have done my share of passionate work that provided satisfaction to me and money for others, thats way tangential though

reply
mistrial9 3 hours ago
fallacy and apologist point of view here. Shall we dig in?

fallacy is "Oh I guess you mean" .. insert large unsolvable and probably unpopular derailment. Bonus points for aggressive labeling of the opponent being opposed to money.

apologist - "Any company on earth" .. We all stand together, Every Company On Earth .. does this warrent serious replies?

reply
giancarlostoro 3 hours ago
Sounds like an exploit took the credentials needed to extract the code, makes me wonder if a Ubikey + SSL cert for git access would have prevented the entire leak.
reply
itintheory 3 hours ago
We implemented CrowdSec for bot/scraping mitigation. The architecture is sound, but it ended up having an unacceptable false positive rate for us. This may be an issue with any kind of IP reputation approach. After a couple of months of work getting it ready to go I had to turn it off after a couple of days.
reply
Jnr 3 hours ago
Not sure what you implemented.

They provide several IP blacklists. None of those seem to be false positives. You can also add custom 3rd party blocklists.

They also provide several different rulesets. It is up to you to choose which ones to use and fine tune. LLMs can be very helpful with that.

And there are 3rd party dashboards and tools that help you manage it more easily.

I use the free version as a simple WAF on multiple servers and it blocks a lot of bots. It did require some initial finetuning though.

Are there any better open source solutions?

reply
itintheory 2 hours ago
We had the main community blocklist and several of their pricey paid blocklists enabled in a PoC capacity. We had a lot of legitimate users end up blocked. In some cases these may have been VPN exit nodes, or users on CG-NAT, or devices on a shared network with some other compromised / bot device. I didn't get 100% of the details, just that we were inundated with support requests from real users that ended up blocked.
reply
EvanAnderson 48 minutes ago
Given the number of residential proxies I see scraping the couple of sites I have responsibility for I don't find IP address-based blocking useful anymore. That ship has sailed.

Behavioral and client fingerprint analysis (ugh-- having to run Javascript just to view a static site) is the only way (at least until we get user "age" and identity attestation rammed down our throats).

reply
mazzma 3 hours ago
Interesting, did you implement only IP reputation (via blocklist) or did you deploy the WAF as well? Regarding bot scrapping, you would probably want to try the new bot detection feature recently released
reply
itintheory 2 hours ago
This was just blocklist based. We had the main community list and a handful of the curated paid lists enabled.

wrt bot detection - this sounds very much like Anubis which we're also using with some success.

reply
UltraSane 3 hours ago
I have written my own honeypots to reduce the false positive rate. I simply have things like a VM with RDP and SSH open to the internet and any IP that tries to login gets banned at the firewall for x days. It works really well.
reply
9029 15 minutes ago
Not to be confused with CrowdStrike, a serious [0] security company

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_CrowdStrike-related_IT_ou...

reply
sidcool 3 hours ago
Security firm hacked.
reply
steve1977 3 hours ago
Security firm putting their source code on Github
reply
pixl97 3 hours ago
A tale as old as time.
reply
xyst 43 minutes ago
yet another security oriented company that doesn’t practice what they preach.

On the flip side, there was allegedly no PII leaked. But this event is still a red flag as it means their internal ops are absolutely shit. So it’s another vendor receiving a PNG flag.

CrowdSec. CrowdStrike.

reply
JonathanCross 3 hours ago
[flagged]
reply
laurennorthwood 3 hours ago
[flagged]
reply
gleezard 3 hours ago
[dead]
reply