this is going to increase in frequency as linux gains popularity
This is why I felt uncomfortable when I first switched to Linux and kept reading that I didn't need to worry about viruses as long as I didn't click on dodgy links and only installed from trusted sources. I'm sure I'm betraying my lack of security knowledge here, but that always seemed a bit too easy.
@DirkMcCallahan @Tundra The AUR isn't a trusted source, but most of the the Arch cult forget to mention that.
most of the the Arch cult forget to mention that
The "Arch cult's" holy book, the ArchWiki, states the following pretty clearly:
Warning: AUR packages are user-produced content. These
PKGBUILDs are completely unofficial and have not been thoroughly vetted. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk.
Mention of one's use of the AUR for their needs doesn't need to come with a disclaimer.
People who don't read or don't use their brain are going to keep not doing so, regardless.
Half the posts on the Internet are people replying to requests for help with the message "read the wiki, the aur isn't a trusted source, dummy"
The AUR, key words “user repository” is a specific weak point. It doesn’t have the same level of oversight that the main arch repo has. Stick to main repos and verified flatpaks and it’s very unlikely that you’d ever be compromised.
Linux isn’t perfect, but it’s certainly better than windows where you just download executables willy nilly to install your software.
That is sound advice, the AUR is most definitely not a trusted source though. For the normal arch repos the people who put the stuff there are known, they work for the project, you're as likely to get malware from one of those as you are to read an article bashing gamespot in gamespot, the people in charge of putting the packages there are the ones with more vested interest in things working so they won't knowingly introduce malicious code (plus it's a handful of people who know each other by first name).
The AUR is a different story, because anyone can put stuff there it's very easy to have malicious code end up there. It doesn't happen that often because most of the time it's fairly obvious and it gets flagged straight away, plus if people start doing that people will migrate away from the AUR, so it's a high risk low reward situation. But as more and more people start to use Arch derivatives that come with the AUR enabled without understanding any of this it becomes a more rewarding thing to exploit.
like git repositories, AUR in its name itself says what it is, a User repository. its trust like repositories is fully based on how much you trust the user who uploaded it
Yeah. The I'm A Mac crowd had the same problem... god damn it, two or three decades ago.
As market share increases, platforms become a much bigger target for malware. And a lot of the "I don't need to run virus scans" crowds learn the hard way.
Its the same with open source. Obviously NOBODY around here would parrot this bullshit, but there is the idea that because something is FOSS it is safe. Code is only as safe as code review and there have been a few high profile cases of social engineering to get malicious code past even fairly rigorous review. Let alone "Well, that script is FOSS so somebody probably reviewed it" that we see so often.
To be fair the AUR is known to be very susceptible to that kind of thing due to the effective absence of entry requirements.
Absolutely.
The Arch User Repository is a way for anyone to easily distribite software.
Hence it has never been secure, and rather than claim it is, you mostly see people and documentation warn you about this, and to be careful if using it.
Any schmuck can make whatever they want available via the AUR. That's how even the tiniest niche project can often be installed via the AUR. But you trade in some security for that convenience.
It shouldn't be used as a marketplace, it should be used as a repository. You can probably find a lot of malware on GitHub, doesn't mean you go there to choose your text editor.
I never search the AUR directly, I only use it if some README tells me I can install their software via an AUR package.
Yeah, I search the AUR not to discover packages, but to see if something I want to install is in there, if it is I check the PKGBUILD and make sure none of the sources/commands/patches are suspicious.
People need to remember it's not some carefully vetted app store and that they need to be the ones vetting any packages they install and any changes when updating.
i don't use arch (btw).
This is technically not Arch's fault btw. I use Arch but don't use AUR for this reason
Also same problem adding random PPA's on Debian and Ubuntu.
Agreed. Or piping random curl things into sh. Or downloading random exes on Windows etc
it was a joke. perhaps a /s was warranted. it could happen in any package manager/repo and I'd be surprised if it hasn't yet.
It has already happened a few times with other repos. Although AUR is especially susceptible because there's no vetting at all, it's a free-for-all that everyone can publish to within a few clicks. This will for sure happen again within a couple months, but better hidden the next time.
Oh definitely, I wasn't trying to correct you or anything. Just having conversation
The affected malicious packages are:
- librewolf-fix-bin
- firefox-patch-bin
- zen-browser-patched-bin
What a nice attack on privacy-friendly infrastructure.
And then, Arch AUR has such suspicious things like the Brave browser which claims to reduce tracking.... and works together with advertisers.
To be clear, AUR is fantastic if you develop some experimental package and you want to give it to your friends to try it out easily. But not as a general distribution mechanism.
We are getting to the point where inviting more people in means we will need an automated babysitter to watch for this shit and to pull it once it’s discovered. Apple has a walled garden approach that’s certainly taken a big chunk of malware threats out of their devices but their walled garden approach is ridiculous and impractical for Linux. The Microsoft method of monitoring and second guessing everything with antimalware programs is also suspect because it is super easy to abuse and resource intensive. We have clamAV but clam kinda sucks.
Linux is at the point where we need something that audits what’s going in and automatically yanks it back out remotely if it’s found to be a problem. Things can only be added by the user, but the bot can remove them without interaction of the user.
I don’t see this happening though. Instead, I see this as more of a rust vs C thing all over again, where valid critiques are drowned out by “improve your skills bro.”
Heard OpenSuse has OpenQA - apparently it is like an automatic test tool for packages.
I kinda watch the Arch devs packaged more stuff rather then relying on thr aur,Chaotic-aur (third party repo) solves mostly.
The arch maintainers package more software than most other distributions. Some items they leave in the AUR by choice, if the Dev prefers it there. The key is to use the AUR sparingly and only if you trust the packager.
The arch maintainers package more software than most other distributions.
Sorry, but I fail to see this.
I suppose if you're accounting literally all independent distros, then you're probably right. However, if we'd be more realistic and compare it to other well-established independent distros^[I'm basically counting Alpine, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, openSUSE, Slackware, Solus and Void. I didn't count Guix System and NixOS for how their 'repositories' are built different and therefore not easily comparable to the others.], then we notice that the vastness of the packages found in Arch's repository is rather lackluster at the very least. Heck, by virtually all metrics, Arch together with its derivatives undoubtedly belong in the upper echelons of usage stats; only being second to the Debian-family of distros. IMO, however, the size of its repository absolutely doesn't reflect this; as it's only bigger than Slackware, Solus and Void. The inclusion of these smaller projects is arguably charitable on my side*. But to drive the point home very clearly: Arch's repository is smaller than Alpine's, Debian's, Fedora's, openSUSE's and Gentoo's with a ratio of (about) two to one (except for openSUSE).
I don't know if raw package counts is the best comparison. Unlike say Fedora, Arch bundles everything related to a project in the same file. If you want Qt6-base on Arch, that is one package. If you want it on Fedora, it is going to have a lib, header, docs, and maybe a few other packages.
Just from personal experience, I do not have issues with finding packages in the main repos, with only a handful of my packages coming from the AUR. This is not the case with others, like Fedora where extra repos need to be added, like EPEL and RPM Fusion.
minecraft-cracked
Gotta assume that if any Arch users actually fell for that one, that they either let their kids use their device or they're generally not smart ( which absolutely goes against my stereotypical view of an arch user ).
The stereotype of arch uses generally being smart is no longer. The "I use arch btw" meme brought a whole new user base to arch. You'll find them on r/unixporn showing off their hyperland rice that they copied from some other user..
I had no idea that existed but I’ve just returned from r/unixporn. There are some sick setups. Also we all copy. My entire neovim config is copied and modified from a couple dozen setups I admired. Nothing wrong with copying things you like. Don’t gate keep Linux.
However… Minecraft cracked is pretty funny lol.
To check your system for those packages (assuming you are using bash):
comm -1 -2 <(pacman -Q | awk '{print $1}' | sort) <(sort vulnerable_packages.txt)
With vulnerable_packages.txt containing one package name per line.
Wait what happens once some government or state actor hacks rust's install script rustup with its curl | bash install procedure and relying on TLS certificates which are e.g. issued by the Russian government. (No, the rust project won't use a Russian/Chinese/US Gov certificate but your browser will trust near all of them...)
the firefox, zen browser and libre wolf packages are concerning. The ttf ms font too. Those are very normal apps and unless you pay attention to the package name when doing "pacman -Syu", you would fall for the malware.
If only we can compartmentalize all AUR packages. The download AUR sources iirc are already in something like $HOME/.paru. Installing is a different story, because these packages can put their executable all over the places: /usr/local/bin, $HOME/local/bin.
With respect, you wouldn't install these by just doing an update, so pacman -Syu is fine.
You would have needed to install these manually, or a package that depended on them - both from AUR - so you'd also need to use yay (etc) to install them.
But - I totally agree with your points that tge names look innocent enough for someone to install those over other packages.
Always look at the AUR (website) at the package details - if it's new(ish) and has 0 or 1 votes, then be suspicious.
The affected malicious packages are:
librewolf-fix-bin firefox-patch-bin zen-browser-patched-bin
So...did someone just like create a new package cloning these or did they somehow get into the "official" repository? Is there no attestation process?
Aur is completely user controlled, it is not official and not trusted. Someone just decided to use those names and upload something.
To be clear, when projects distribute their software via the aur, someone else can't just issue an update using their package name.
This person appended "fix" and "patched" to appear in searches next to legitimate packages, and seem worth installing instead.
I already assumed aur was riddled with stuff like that.
Use a condom when fucking around in there.
Why are they called "patched" and "fix" and who is installing them?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0