Oh dear, the situation with the Arch Linux AUR got a fair bit worse since GamingOnLinux initially covered the malicious packages.
  • tired_fedora@lemmy.ml
    466·
    8 days 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

    • Christian@lemmy.mlEnglish
      2·
      8 days ago

      To be clear, -Qm displays installed packages not currently in the repositories. This will include AUR packages, but I avoid the AUR (except for davmail years ago) every once in a while I’ll run it just to check and sometimes it finds packages.

      When you install things from the main repos the dependencies get installed too, and if those dependencies are no longer needed they’ll be removed from the repositories. (I also have a bad habit of forgetting --asdeps when installing optional dependencies.) Sometimes they’ll conflict with a new dependency and pacman will ask to remove and replace them, but other times the functionality has become a part of an existing package, so with no conflict to prompt removal they’ll just sit unused on your install. If you haven’t tried -Qm in a long while you’ll probably find a few harmless currently-unused packages that were installed through the normal repos. (-Qdt will cover the other cases where dependencies remain in the repos but are now only needed for packages you don’t have installed.)

      Obviously -Qm will also show removed packages that aren’t dependencies, a few years back my preferred pdf viewer was removed from the repositories.

      -Qm will also find manually installed packages that aren’t in the AUR if you ever do that.

  • communism@lemmy.ml
    19·
    8 days 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@lemmy.ml
    10·
    8 days 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

    • f3nyx@lemmy.ml
      11·
      8 days ago

      Debian users should receive their news 6-12 months after everyone else, change my mind

      /s

    • SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml
      41·
      7 days ago

      Whoa, this is blowing up. Chill, guys. I really think that sucks. If anything, with Arch being bleeding edge and all of that, at least you’re showing early the tough wake up the other distros will have to do in relation to malware after Linux’ increasing popularity. Time to brush those SELinux and apparmor bits, even.

      But, now, we Debian users are okay, (btw, 😎).

    • myszka@lemmy.ml
      31·
      7 days ago

      Me, a NixOS user, watching folks fighting over a bunch of legacy distros 😎😎😎

  • Sonalder@lemmy.ml
    93·
    8 days 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@lemmy.ml
      8·
      8 days 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@lemmy.ml
        1·
        8 days 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@lemmy.ml
          2·
          7 days 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.