171
Developers: I will never ever do that, no one should ever do that, and you should be ashamed for guiding people to. I get that you want to make things easy for end users, but at least exercise some bare minimum common sense.
The worst part is that bun is just a single binary, so the install script is bloody pointless.
Bonus mildly infuriating is the mere existence of the .sh TLD.
Edit b/c I'm not going to answer the same goddamned questions 100 times from people who blindly copy/paste the question from StackOverflow into their code/terminal:
WhY iS ThaT woRSe thAn jUst DoWnlOADing a BinAary???
- Downloading the compiled binary from the release page (if you don't want to build yourself) has been a way to acquire software since shortly after the dawn of time. You already know what you're getting yourself into
- There are SHA256 checksums of each binary file available in each release on Github. You can confirm the binary was not tampered with by comparing a locally computed checksum to the value in the release's checksums file.
- Binaries can also be signed (not that signing keys have never leaked, but it's still one step in the chain of trust)
- The install script they're telling you to pipe is not hosted on Github. A misconfigured / compromised server can allow a bad actor to tamper with the install script that gets piped directly into your shell. The domain could also lapse and be re-registered by a bad actor to point to a malicious script. Really, there's lots of things that can go wrong with that.
The point is that it is bad practice to just pipe a script to be directly executed in your shell. Developers should not normalize that bad practice.
I think you missed the point.
Why is that safer/better? That binary can do anything a shell script can, and it’s a lot harder to inspect.
The point is that it is bad practice to just pipe a script to be directly executed in your shell. Developers should not normalize that bad practice
If you trust them enough to use their binary, why don't you trust them enough to run their install scripts as well?
How do you know the script hasnt been compromised? Is every user competent enough to evaluate it to ensure its safe to run?
Using package managers to handle this provides a couple things: First: most package manager have builtin mechanisms to ensure the binary is unmodified Second: they provide a third party validating them.
You don't, same as you don't know if the binary has been compromised, just like when a npm package deleted files for russian users. I get that running scripts from the internet without looking at them first to understand what they do is not secure, but downloading and running anything from the internet is coupled with some amount of risk. How do you know that you won't be mining crypto currency in addition to the original purpose of the binary? You don't unless you read the source code.
It all comes down to if you trust the provider or not. Personally, if I trust them enough to run binary files on my computer, I trust them enough to use their scripts for installation. I don't agree that something is more unsafe just because it is a script.
Not everything is provided with a package manager, and not everything is up to update with the OS provided package manager. I agree that one should ideally use a package manager with third party validation if that is an option.
Yes. thats precisely the problem we're pointing out to you. if you're going to provide software over the internet provide a proper package with checksum validation. its not hard, stop providing bash scripts.