• Feyd@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I feel like these headlines are designed to be way scarier than the scenarios actually are to people that don’t know much about Arch Linux.

    • fouc@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’s a good thing to frighten users just a little bit. Arch is no longer a niche distro and it was only a matter of time before someone took advantage of the generally unvetted AUR. It’s a wake-up call that the times of good faith are gone and you need to pay attention.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      true and part of me suspects that it’s intentional on the part of arch users so that they can continue to tell the world that they “use arch btw” lol

  • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Man, we’re gonna have to change the name of the AUR because bad journalists keep thinking this has something to do with the distro.

    “Arch Linux Users who go out of their way to install RAT at risk of installing RAT”

  • MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The malicious packages were found and removed quite quickly. Also anyone who doesn’t blindly install from the AUR would have seen a suspicious .lol url. I suppose that a genuine package using a .lol url isn’t impossible, it’s just very unlikely,

    These attacks do demonstrate the strength and weakness of the AUR, that anyone can upload anything at any time. The same as flathub and the snap store. Treat all of them with appropriate caution.

    • Karna@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Flatpak does have a concept of Verified Publisher. Many distros ship flatpak app store with default filter set to Verified Publisher only.

      • Daniel Quinn@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That sounds like a nice feature we could use for the Aur actually. We already have the votes value, but some sort of verification body could help rescue the Aur’s reputation.

  • Mactan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I saw two pkgbuild from the user, I don’t really know what I’m looking at in pkgbuilds generally but these were dead obvious something was bogus . downloading arbitrary files from some url like (segs)(dot)(lol) hopefully sufficiently defanged

  • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    isnt that well known though? AUR packages are built by third parties (eg users) and there were always warnings against just this, no?

    • LeFantome@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It is a well known risk but not something that was a real risk numerically. I mean, it still isn’t given the number of packages in the AUR.

      This is a couple of malicious packages discovered in a short period though. Not a good sign. It was really impact the AUR if polluting it with malware became common.

      You should always inspect AUR packages before installing them but few people do. Many would not even know what they were looking at.

      • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        yeah, that’s almost as bad as those apps requiring you to pipe a remote script through sudo shell