11–20 of 227 posts
I cringed hard when some people started to make pacman wrappers that could install from AUR directly. I've installed stuff from the aur before but most of the times I prefer to skip the middleman and just navigate to the project website. A premade pkgbuild is not convenient enough to take the risk of typoquatting or the tactical npm or pip dependency.
Perfect demonstration!
How bad was it?
1,500 packages out of 107,000 so pretty bad, ameliorated by only affecting installs of those in a window of a few days. AUR comes with a warning that its up to you to check what you install from there.
I cringed hard when some people started to make pacman wrappers that could install from AUR directly. I've installed stuff from the aur before but most of the times I prefer to skip the middleman and just navigate to the project website. A premade pkgbuild is not convenient enough to take the risk of typoquatting or the tactical npm or pip dependency.
(It's a bit vulnerable to it on first install, but so is 'just navigate to the project website [and click download]'.)
How bad was it?
1,500 packages out of 107,000 so pretty bad, ameliorated by only affecting installs of those in a window of a few days. AUR comes with a warning that its up to you to check what you install from there.
Next up, "millions of malicious packages still not taken down on internet"
As I undertood it this was mostly orphaned packages?
So with a dozen of various systems running arch/cachyos for various purposes, 0 impact.
We seriously dodged a bullet though, should we have some kind of AI spotting shady activity before it hits the userbase?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1,500 packages out of 107,000 so pretty bad, ameliorated by only affecting installs of those in a window of a few days. AUR comes with a warning that its up to you to check what you install from there.
I wonder what typical AUR usage looks like. I apparently have 27 packages installed and last updated one in November.
pacman -Qm
As always a fair reminder to not install random 3rd party packages/libraries/applications without reviewing them, especially when there is zero vetting. Luckily this was constrained to AUR, which basically is a free-for-all package repository, with users being warned multiple times that it's vital to review anything before you install it, compared to the official repositories. `rua` and other similar CLIs make it rea…
I think this stance should be re-evaluated. Arch Linux developers are doing a fantastic job and I am personally thankful to them - this is not in any way critical of them. And while I don't see an easy solution here, I just feel that the time of "warning users" is long gone with how much supply-chain attacks are ramping up these days.
Some other controls could at least alleviate the problem. Perhaps some form of peer-review and grace period before publishing could help here?
I cringed hard when some people started to make pacman wrappers that could install from AUR directly. I've installed stuff from the aur before but most of the times I prefer to skip the middleman and just navigate to the project website. A premade pkgbuild is not convenient enough to take the risk of typoquatting or the tactical npm or pip dependency.
For me, this tradeoff isn’t worth it. I didn’t switch to Linux so that I can waste time going to websites and clicking “download” to update my programs like a Windows user. The pacman wrappers you mention are crazy, though.
Also if the software is downloaded in the form of a git repo, you only needed to checkout the new tag and rebuild, don't need your browser at all.
As always a fair reminder to not install random 3rd party packages/libraries/applications without reviewing them, especially when there is zero vetting. Luckily this was constrained to AUR, which basically is a free-for-all package repository, with users being warned multiple times that it's vital to review anything before you install it, compared to the official repositories. `rua` and other similar CLIs make it rea…
> users being warned multiple times that it's vital to review anything before you install it, compared to the official repositories. I think this stance should be re-evaluated. Arch Linux developers are doing a fantastic job and I am personally thankful to them - this is not in any way critical of them. And while I don't see an easy solution here, I just feel that the time of "warning users" is long gone with how muc…
I cringed hard when some people started to make pacman wrappers that could install from AUR directly. I've installed stuff from the aur before but most of the times I prefer to skip the middleman and just navigate to the project website. A premade pkgbuild is not convenient enough to take the risk of typoquatting or the tactical npm or pip dependency.
`yay` (one such wrapper) shows me the PKGBUILD diff on every update. The first time I install something I verify the URL, and check any install script etc. seems sensible; the vast majority of subsequent updates are changes to just version number & checksum. A typosquat attack would be very obvious. (It's a bit vulnerable to it on first install, but so is 'just navigate to the project website [and click download]'.)
Git repo have been attacked other times in the past, but a 500/1000 stars project still sounds more trustworthy than a user repository managed by randos with a couple of upvotes. I still use the aur for simple cases, but when I see aur packages depending on multiple other aur packages I immediately leave.