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 (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 (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
  • [–] 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