Oh dear, the situation with the Arch Linux AUR got a fair bit worse since GamingOnLinux initially covered the malicious packages.
  • tired_fedora ( tired_fedora@lemmy.ml ) 
    67·
    5 months ago

    TLDR: Open package repositories without some approval and oversight system, like AUR, will have even more problems in the future due to advanced coding AI and malicious foreign hackers.

    Edit: Please normalize TLDR’s on bot posts with just a link.

    Edit 2: I have been rightfully informed that this is not a bot post. I still think links should not be posted without a tiny abstract, one might say: a TLDR.

    I have also been informed that the text does not spell out “foreign”. This is correct. The text does say

    Not all of the packaging issues are as bad as the initial wave of trying to steal credentials, some are just adding ridiculous messages in Russian.

    This implies but does not establish the nationality of attackers. While Arch has contributors from all over the world, it is commonly cited as being a Canadian distribution (example, see below). https://distrowatch.com/table-mobile.php?distribution=arch

  • communism ( communism@lemmy.ml ) 
    30·
    5 months ago

    What an annoyingly uninformative title. Better title: a lot more compromised AUR packages have been found since our last update.

    “A lot worse” is intentionally vague to get people to click.

  • GaumBeist ( GaumBeist@lemmy.ml ) 
    16·
    5 months ago

    At least some level of human review is going to be needed.

    So… completely negating the point of a User Repository??? Introduce some kind of authoritative oversight, and it’s essentially just another regular repository, erasing all the benefits of the AUR. The whole point of the distro slapping a huge disclaimer of “DISCLAIMER: AUR packages are user produced content. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk.” at the top of the homepage is because these kind of compromises are the trade-off one makes

  • Sonalder ( sonalder@lemmy.ml ) 
    13·
    5 months ago

    AUR has never been a good idea. I don’t use it and this news proved me right.

    Does that mean a distro official package manager would be immune to infections? Of course not, but they do offer a more secure distribution system and build greater trust. Minimizing the chance of malware being spread through their means.

    Edit: If you have the knowledge and time to inspect the AUR packages you install, AUR might be good for you. I have none of these, that’s why I stick to my official distro packages (and sometimes also some flatpak but from official sources)

    • communism ( communism@lemmy.ml ) 
      14·
      5 months ago

      It’s just a repository of user-contributed packages. It’s no different malware-ability-wise to, say, GitHub. If you are running code you found from a stranger on the internet then you are liable for it, and you need to do your due diligence in checking that you are not running malware. It is a good thing that the AUR exists because it means Arch user packages are all in one centralised repository instead of scattered across GitHub, Sourceforge, Codeberg, Pastebin, forums, whatever. If you are just installing random AUR packages then that’s on you. It’s basic internet safety to not automatically trust random scripts you find on the internet.

      • Sonalder ( sonalder@lemmy.ml ) 
        2·
        5 months ago

        I never said that GitHub was better. I just don’t feel like using a package maintained by a stranger with no tied to neither the software I want to install nor the distribution packages repository.

        Of course installing random code from stranger is never great advice regardless of the distribution source. But AUR is simply not for me, and many users don’t understand the risk or let’s say responsabilities it involves while installing packages from that source.

        • communism ( communism@lemmy.ml ) 
          2·
          5 months ago

          I agree about the risks in terms of the way some sources present the AUR as just extra packages. But I don’t think you can object to the AUR more than any other place on the internet where anyone can upload software; unfortunately, the onus is going to be on the user to verify what they install. The AUR is moderated by volunteers and it wouldn’t be fair to expect them to vet all of the high volume of commits to the AUR. Possibly they could vet new maintainers or new packages or newly adopted packages, but nothing would stop someone from initially uploading a genuine package and then replacing it with something malicious. Or they could require identity verification to be an AUR maintainer but then far fewer genuine packages would be on there because people don’t want to give their real identity to contribute (I maintain some AUR packages, and would stop if required to verify my IRL identity).

          I can totally understand if the AUR is not for you; it’s more time-consuming as you have to read PKGBUILDs (I always do). But that doesn’t make it bad that it exists at all. I think there should be more warnings about it for new users, and possibly some more moderation, though like I said above there’s no perfect moderation solution that would simultaneously forgo users’ responsibility to check and keep the AUR as large as it is today. Ultimately the option should still exist for users who want it. If it didn’t exist, I’d have to hand-package every program that’s not in the official repos, and that’s even more time-consuming than pulling and reading through a PKGBUILD that someone else already wrote and shared.

  • VirtuePacket ( VirtuePacket@lemmy.zip ) 
    10·
    5 months ago

    I think I’d be satisfied with just not allowing people to take over orphaned packages. That seems like a glaring attack vector and closing it would not harm the AUR in any way.

    And yea, arch (and its derivatives) probably should not ship with AUR helpers pre-installed.

    • fxdave ( fxdave@lemmy.ml ) 
      12·
      5 months ago

      I use arch btw, it’s only effecting the arch user repository, which lives separately from the maintained repositories, it’s not even possible to download stuff from there with pacman. Really it’s just a community space, I also have packages there. You can download pre-packaged apps, so if you install them, you will be able to remove them with pacman. I think it’s a great concept.

      it’s like a forum where some jerk writes “use ‘sudo rm -rf /’ to speed up the computer”. Except you don’t have to read it to execute their plan.

      Flathub is also concerning btw. But at least those apps are containers (with too much permissions)