201
Arch Linux AUR Malware Campaign Hits Multiple User-Contributed Packages (linuxiac.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Arch Linux’s AUR is experiencing a malware incident involving user-contributed packages with malicious commits that attempt to download npm-based payloads during installation. (...)

Arch users should not update AUR packages without review. Examine PKGBUILD diffs, check any new .install files, and be cautious if updates introduce npm commands or dependencies unrelated to the software.

Users who recently updated affected AUR packages should review package history, examine executed suspicious install scripts, and treat any unexpected npm-based installation behavior as a possible compromise.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Maybe, just maybe, and nearly unmoderated repository where everybody can create packages, is not so secure after all? /s

And AUR is the reason I keep arch miles away from any of my systems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You do have the choice to simply not use the AUR. Has nothing to do with using Arch or not.

    And no one has ever claimed the AUR to be safe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago

    Nobody ever says the AUR is safe. In fact they say specifically that it's not; for exactly the reasons you mention.

    That's why it's the Arch USER Repository. You take your fate in your own hands when you choose to use it.

    As for your comment about using a distro that has everything in the main repo? How so? Every flavour has software that isn't included in the main repos. For Arch based systems, that means either the AUR or Flatpaks. For Debian based systems, that means adding new repos to your sources, which is exactly as unsafe as the AUR in most cases, or using Flatpaks.

    If you've ever added a repo on Ubuntu, than you've essentially used their version of an AUR. The end result is no different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Or you coukd just use Arch without installing an AUR helper?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    And then, where get I 70% of my packages I need? For example a useful browser like brave? Yeah ...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (1 child)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Anywhere else, I just need the package from the brave project or their repo. I trust the brave project, I do not trust the AUR for reasons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    There is an install script for linux front and center on the page (classic curl into sh). For other distros, they're having you add their own repository and install from that. Just as sketchy.

    It's unwise to trust Brave, anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    That was an example. And as someone who works in sec, I know the benefits of a package manager.

    "I only need to trust brave".

    I don't get it, static linking, curl to bash pipes and userepace install and everybody thinks that is fine. But as someone who needs to write a security concept for Linux in the office so I can finally use it at work, no that is not ok. That is shit.

    Rust on desktop is also a nightmare for example.

    No I do not hate arch, I hate concepts and mindsets creeping into the Linux world

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    curl | sh is the worst security front door I've seen

    At least check the script first so it's understood

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    On one hand I agree, but how different is it really from running an opaque executable or installer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Well, with the script at least you can follow the actions first, so it's better...just don't run it blindly because 2 minutes ago the attacker just put an additonal line of code in...

    The executable / installer is more of a Windows thing and we've seen how that arms race is going... even Microsoft are trying to create a Linux-style repo called Windows Store.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent