That said, the headline is misleading. This article is about a social engineering attack that requires the user to actively reject multiple safety warnings in Obsidian. As far as I know this is a proof of concept, I haven't seen any reports of users being affected by this attack.
I am using several plugins and would prefer not to, but they allow me to bring the (mobile) app closer to what I want (notably templater and homepage as I want to get a new daily note sorted in monthly folders, which obsidian doesn't seem to allow natively).
Maybe an alternative would also be to more explicitly allow users to create their own scripts - but maybe that's possible and I just don't know.
Overall I think the key challenge with obsidian use is that it offers too much, and there's a lot to fiddle with. While it will bother the power users probably best would be to just move on many ways to "default" behaviours and e.g. make many of the "core plugins" just settings to make the list lsss overwhelming.
-
I've read the article describing the attack, and my very first thought was utter surprise that the entire attack chain started with someone accepting a shared vault from a stranger via social media (linked in and similar). That seems really, really strange to me.
I've never shared a vault - but if I did, I'd probably do so as a git repo of markdown files.
It would be interesting to see a blog post from Obsidian about "good hygiene for sharing vaults".
Is this like a popup? which most people actively accept without blinking
I think plugin/extensions should be a bit harder to run by default. I get the user friction from extra hurdles before using their plugins etc., but I don't think there is an actually safe way to execute arbitrary code, unaudited, without sandboxing, or other restrictions.
1. exit restricted mode to allow third-party plugins
2. trust the author of the vault that's being shared with you
3. trust the plugins being shared with you via sync
There's no protections beyond that, community plugins can do whatever they want. Thankfully, the vast majority of them are open-source.
1. Make community plugins less necessary over time as basic features become part of core
2. Improve the security of community plugins
3. Make it easy to create your own plugins that you can fully trust, e.g. with the recent release of Obsidian CLI
If you mean for the security of the app without plugins you can currently inspect the app's code in app.js and review third-party audits:
Idk, I've always thought it was odd that the "community plugins" settings pane seemed more concerned with assuring the user that community plugins were fine than actually explaining the risk.
There is literally a single sentence about the fact that plugins "may cause data integrity and security issues", and it is hedged with the mealy-mouthed modifier "like any other software you install". The absolute majority of it - maybe 80% of the text by window height - is about the measures Obsidian does to vet and secure plugins. All of it appears to be written with the intent to placate any concerns.
Is this the safety warning? The screen that says that community plugins could cause issues "like any other software", but they're actually super safe and vetted and totally fine? Is it surprising that a person, faced with a screen like this, would be susceptible to a social engineering attack?
I use Obsidian because it does not treat me like a child. They can add more nags and banners for normies, but the capabilities should remain.
Plugins like Tasks do offer a Query functionality that allows me to list e.g. weekly tasks on my daily template, replicating most of Noteplan's workflow, except Noteplan relies on being able to easily link those tasks into daily template by drag and dropping them, which internally assigns a unique but hidden by default ID in ^129abz notation (https://help.noteplan.co/article/138-synced-blocks). The latter is already supported by Obsidian, it's just not as "clean" and, AFAIK, impossible to get done when drag and dropping.
Obsidian has the proper protections in place to prevent this type of attack, and the victims are being convinced to ignore them. This is just a successful social engineering event. I hate to see Obsidian dragged down by this headline, since this attack is not exploiting a vulnerability in it or its plugin system.
>Due to technical limitations, Obsidian cannot reliably restrict plugins to specific permissions or access levels. This means that plugins will inherit Obsidian's access levels. As a result, consider the following examples of what community plugins can do:
Community plugins can access files on your computer.
Community plugins can connect to internet.
Community plugins can install additional programs.
This was only a matter of time, and honestly I think it's inexcusably negligent that they shipped a plugin system like this at all since about 2010 (or arguably much earlier).
I agree with the claim of negligence. I think they were more than happy to reap the benefits of a thriving community plugin ecosystem, and were hoping this page would provide enough CYA when security breaches inevitably occurred.
> TIP: If you're working with sensitive data and wish to install a community plugin, we recommend that you perform an independent security audit on the plugin before using it.
I wonder just how many plugins received a security audit.
That's what make obsidian plugins useful. It it's just for having themes , there is no need for them
I think the value of this disclosure is more in spreading awareness about plugins, and demonstrating the vector. Where less sophisticated users may think, "Oh, this is just a collection of markdown files. I don't need to be too worried about malicious code."
I have to imagine the Obsidian team is going to respond seriously to this and I look forward to seeing what they do. They have my full confidence. I'm surprised the system was initially designed as it is without those better permissions and sandboxing, though.
"Novel Campaign Abuses Obsidian Note-Taking App to Target Finance and Crypto Professionals with PHANTOMPULSE RAT”
It’s novel (new), an abuse of Obsidian, specifically targeting a group of people.. and the RAT is embedded in the vault.
Personally it feels similar to being mad at Windows if you were to install an exe someone emailed you and it turned out to be a virus.
You can install bad chrome plugins, bad wow addons, basically anything that's purpose is to run user code can be used to run bad code.
Personally I'm glad the _note taking app_ prioritized allowing for custom plugins over pushing back features so they could spend an extra year locking down user plugins. They can put some additional effort in but running unknown code will always be a risk.
The fact that creating a good plugin system is difficult does not give them a free pass to not implement a good one, it is a for profit company that has a considerable revenue.
The other problem is that security is hard, and just giving generic access and adding some basic guards is simple.
Much easier to just skip that part.
So yes, it’s too much work (in the sense that you need to have a security-focused leadership that understands that this is a lot of work but the right thing to do).
Maybe I just also have a higher personal risk appetite, but even as a dev and knowing these risks I would have enabled the community plugin option. Again, hope I'm just the minority here and not most user behaviour.
Also I can't tell how to prevent plugin updates. As long as you rely on a known safe version I guess there is never any real risk.
(I actually use LogSeq, but same idea applies).
A bad update to one of the popular plugins could compromise lot of systems.
Same way I run any other application that could potentially execute untrusted code.
> It enables malicious versions of legitimate Obsidian plugins ('Shell Commands' and 'Hider') that are present in the shared vault.
1. Plugins are stored inside your vault.
2. If you open a vault from an untrusted source, it could contain custom/malicious plugins that will run things on your computer.
3. Then end.
To check if any community plugin is safe, it seems like you'd have to not only review the code on github, but also analyze the github release files to be sure nothing malicious packed in there.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about the process, I'd appreciate if anyone could confirm or explain otherwise.
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/how-tos/secure-your-work/...
So would a user have to do some kind of `gh attestation verify PATH/TO/YOUR/BUILD/ARTIFACT-BINARY ...`? (assuming the plugin dev provides an sbom?)
What I want from Obsidian is something that "just works". Adding third-party plugin would break this immediately since the plugins can either be straight up buggy, create conflicts with each other or simply become incompatible with new Obsidian releases.
And what I've seen from the community, with people having dozens of plugins installed, is giving me nightmares.
I can see why some would feel the appeal of plugins, and adding two or three can be fine, as long as you do your due diligence. Otherwise it's straight shooting you in the foot.
So I did the (imho) only sensible thing, and run Obsidian in a sandbox (bwrap). By doing so, I also made sure it runs in a separate networking namespace. For now, I disallow any internet access.
The amount of rage I see here is a bit strange, the whole attraction of Obsidian is that you can turn it into a Swiss army knife (that can hurt you too ofc).
@kepano: you would greatly help me if you could force plugin authors to list the urls they want to access inside the manifest, then let the user per url decide if they want to enable it. I still see some stupid plugin authors download their assets from a CDN or a vague website, from deeply buried in their code. Making url depencies explicit helps firewall automation at a first step. Maybe you could revoke direct network access from plugins, but i am not too knowledgeable about Electron.
> The amount of rage I see here is a bit strange
Serious question: do you think it is actually obvious and technically accessable to everyday people to have the thought "I should run this in a sandbox" and do it?
Like no this is not some super elite haxxr tool, it's a text editor pretty explicitly advertised as being non-technical-person-friendly.
> Serious question: do you think it is actually obvious and technically accessable to everyday people to have the thought "I should run this in a sandbox" and do it?
You have a point though that non-technical people are screwed, but they have always been. Their whole lives and biometrics rest on Google and Apple servers anayways, while a good part of their identity is being traded by non-scrupulous commercial predators under the veil of advertising purposes. They are so beyond f*cked that I did not include their concerns wrt Obsidian plugins.
I say shiny horse statue.
It's so a distracting and unfocused
It’s sandboxed; can’t make network connections and can only read the directory you select. I’m surprised Apple haven’t added OS level functionality to block network connections / folder access for non sandboxed apps, similar to running an un-notarised binary.
I really do think Obsidian needs 2 things to have any reasonable security:
1. It needs to be a lot more batteries-included. A user shouldn't need a plugin for basic functionality.
2. It needs a granular permission system, where each plugin should have to declare and prompt you to allow or reject specific permissions, just like on iOS and Android. The system should enforce that a plugin cannot bypass this.
What functionality are you thinking of? I just looked and I've never enabled community plugins.
My Obsidian complaint is the opposite. I think its bloated well beyond the initial premise of a markdown editor over a directory of files. I think it was just about perfect right before the introduction of the Canvas feature.
Can I ask, what basic functionality is Obsidian missing in 2026? (I work on the app)
Here are some feature I wish existed in Obsidian without any plugins:
* Dataview [1] (this is now solved with Bases, so I really appreciate that)
* Folder Note [2] (I, and I assume many others come from Notion, and I wish this were a thing)
* Recent files [3]
* A built in calendar [4]
* Link embeds [5] (or something to store previews for pasted links)
* Waypoint [6], or something to create a table of contents
These are just things I wish existed, but whether or not these are 'basic' can be debated. Ultimately I do wish there were a robust permission system for plugins so that personal functionality gaps can be plugged, but without compromising safety.
References: [1] https://blacksmithgu.github.io/obsidian-dataview/ [2] https://github.com/xpgo/obsidian-folder-note-plugin [3] https://github.com/tgrosinger/recent-files-obsidian [4] https://github.com/liamcain/obsidian-calendar-plugin [5] https://github.com/Seraphli/obsidian-link-embed [6] https://github.com/IdreesInc/Waypoint
1) Basic functional search
Search should handle different order of words, misspellings (fuzziness), offer indexing and searching in a larger scope than just titles and aliases (e.g. headers or content), as well as allowing users to customize search priorities. Basically - just include Omnisearch as a core plugin.
2) Basic image preview
Displaying an image on full screen, with panning and zoom, when clicked upon.
3) Full "folder notes" support
Out-of-the-box support for a vault structure where each note has its own dedicated folder where all its attachments are placed. While the basic functionality is present, an external plugin is required to declutter the vault file hierarchy and actually make this approach feasible. Folder notes approach is in my opinion the only way to keep a large vault organized.
4) Basic formatting.
Text coloring. Text alignment and justification. Basic image positioning. Proper text flow wrapping around images. Table formatting (at least a setting minimum column width).
5) Markdown parsing within HTML tags
Basics Markdown features like [[linking]] don't work within a section of text enclosed by HTML tags. And using HTML/CSS is currently required to achieve basic formatting like centered or colored text.
6) Option to use the first h1 tag as the note title
I'm talking about actual support for this and integration with core functionality like search and linking. Useful (sometimes long) titles are an essential part of note-taking and knowledge databases. Meanwhile, filenames are simply semi-unique file system identifiers. Forcing users to use filenames as titles compromises the usefulness of titles and leads to issues with filename / filepath length. In HTML and Markdown, the h1 tag was always intended for the title.
7) Consistent formatting between reading view and editing view
Rendering of content, especially vertical spacing between elements differs between those views for no credible reason. The code syntax highlighter is also deficient in editing mode, despite it being the mode in which Obsidian users spend 99% of their time while writing, editing and reviewing notes.
It's not an exhaustive list, but these are the biggest pain points right now. And let me repeat - you shouldn't continue to rely on community plugins for these features. Even though community plugins are great, they are a security concern, their development could cease at any point, and new users don't know about them.
E.g. this is how they criticise obsidian - suggesting that a default location backup is somehow worse than default cloud sync is just very strange to me.
Obsidian stores your data as a folder of plaintext files on your local computer. You are thus responsible for securing this folder and making it available on your other devices. This is particularly difficult on mobile platforms that lack access to a robust file system.
The issue is that this could happen to anyone who just searches the malicious plugin's name and installs it. Worse if it's a popular one that gets compromised.
It takes 5 minutes in their Discord channel to see the founders are D&D nerds, not competent engineers. It was never meant for serious work.
I know absolutely nothing about Obsidian but I'd expect quite a few competent engineers to also be D&D nerds no!?
Are you saying the two are mutually exclusive?
The two are not mutually exclusive. What would you trust more than a nerd? A jock? A spod? An MBA?
Any evidence of other examples if bad engineering you can point to, or are your thoughts on the pluggin system and throwing shade at random groups of people all you've got?
[FYI: I know little of obsidian other than planning to look into it at some point as people I know use and like it. I stepped into this set of comments in case there was something useful I should be passing on to those people]
Anyway, What I like about obsidian is that it can handle a truly huge amount of notes without slowing down, and the notes are just markdown files on disk, so there's no lock in. I have used evernote, ms one note and zoho notebook before, and had issues with all of them.