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.
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
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.
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.
If only we can compartmentalize all AUR packages
at this point you'll be reinventing Flatpak
Why are they called "patched" and "fix" and who is installing them?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can't even install from AUR using pacman directly. You either need to makepkg them manually, or use an extra AUR compatible package manager like yay. It's made as clear as possible to arch users that the AUR is not vetted in any way, it's just for convenience.
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
PKGBUILD
s 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.
Arch is not responsible for idiots.
Arch is not recommended for idiots either. If you want cutting edge, you accept the risks. Works that way with all tech.
I feel like the people who don't look at PKGBUILDs and install hooks and just hit Y on everything are the same people who spam "Next" and "Accept" on Windows Installers from random websites.
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.
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.
I agree that gatekeeping is no good and people should not do that.
However...
we all copy
I do not feel that assuming all people copy, should be done either, in my opinion.
I never said there was anything wrong with copying. I was simply pointing out a stereotype.
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 exe
s 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.
Oh definitely, I wasn't trying to correct you or anything. Just having conversation
I already assumed aur was riddled with stuff like that.
Use a condom when fucking around in there.
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...)