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
Adoptions are a mistake anyways. Remove unmaintained packages and block the name for several months.
Adoption of unmaintained packages to maintain them is not a mistake. The problem is the current implementation, not the idea behind it. It's like saying the AUR is a mistake, because some people do malicious stuff.
They should find a better solution, like adoption shouldn't be granted to everyone without question, especially new accounts who didn't maintain anything before. Mass adoption shouldn't be granted automatically (limit rate), in example 1 package adoption per day and if someone wants more, admins or moderators need to approve. And updates of newly adopted packages should wait a day.
Also the AUR helpers should do a better job. Always ask if a new adopted package should be updated and give a warning the maintainer changed.
The problem is the current implementation
Yes, exactly this! I am not surprised it happens. I’m surprised it didn’t happen before.
especially new accounts
Weren’t there “sleeper accounts” registered years ago that became active in the current wave?
Also the AUR helpers should do a better job.
Even experienced people will just update as if nothing could happen. Adopted packages should have to use a different name and the current name being blocked so it WILL get attention when some tries to update their system.
Weren’t there “sleeper accounts” registered years ago that became active in the current wave?
Which does not invalidate my point about new accounts, but yes. Its important for new accounts, so once a sleeper account is banned, its not that easy to just create thousands of new accounts while everyone is focusing on the current active ones. And if, as I suggested, mass adoption per account is not possible, then the attacker has less to attack.
Edit: They need to make sure that sudden editing many packages in short time, with probably the same or similar lines should be automatically reported. They need some automated checks in place, at the very least. This would be a very suspicious behavior if many accounts are not active, and then suddenly all of them do something.
Even experienced people will just update as if nothing could happen.
Then you can't fault the system, if you are this reckless.
Adopted packages should have to use a different name and the current name being blocked so it WILL get attention when some tries to update their system.
This would break all dependencies of this package. The point of adoption is to keep it working and stable. I'm highly against force changing the name, that is not a solution (at least not one I am happy about).
[Changing a package’s name] would break all dependencies of this package.
Yes, that is correct. But that should not be a big deal for packages that are actively maintained. The maintainer can simply change the dependency to the new name after making sure the new package is legit.
OK, that's a good point. It would prevent auto updating. However any package that is NOT updated, should stay with same name in my opinion. So that everything (with the old secure code) stays intact and working. The name change should be part of the the update process. So it only breaks if you want to update, which would ensure compatibility if you choose not to (as it is safe). Something along the likes like this. I agree with your suggestion now, because that seems to be sensible idea.
Enforced commit signing and making it obvious when the signature changes would help make adoption much safer. I really hope they implement it.
Remove unmaintained packages and block the name for several months.
Alright, but that would mean most of AUR. Have a look at the package statistics box on the AUR homepage. Most packages fall under that definition in one way or another. The vast majority of the AUR is package some random person added once then never bothered with ever again.
Frankly I'm surprised that the AUR has survived for so long in its current form, for what is basically a shell script distribution system with zero supervision and zero safety guards.
The vast majority of the AUR is package some random person added once then never bothered with ever again.
Yes, that sucks. But I was thinking of exclusively this packages: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages?submit=Orphans
The orphan package criteria is misleading. If you look at the infobox you'll see that there are only 69 package "maintainers" for 100k+ packages.
THIS is misleading, though.
There are definitely more than just 69 users who uploaded packages to the AUR.
I use malware, btw 😎
Arch should be stopped to be recommended to new users of Linux ASAP
Well, just don't use AUR for everything. They don't even recommend helpers. It's ment to be tedious, to discourage usage for non-necesarry bullshit.
Is anybody really recommending Arch to new users though?
Yeah, there's a ton of people that recommend Cachy when it is really meant for tinkerers IMHO
I suppose so. I run Cachy now but that's only after 3 years of switching distros several times and getting more confident with how Linux works.
They have been as of late
Arch as far as I am aware has never been recommended to new users. Sure their is CachyOS and other variants. And on top of that AUR you shut read the build scripts. But I suppose not many people do that unfortunately.
Why tf didn't they leave it disabled since the last attack?
Just saw DeepSeek TUI in there, that's probably going to be a whopper that hit quite a few users.
You mean https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/deepseek-tui-git from the list https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/aur-general@lists.archlinux.org/thread/P4WIRHTFNH2YZWQHGBAKQWX5YOAFIDLY/ ? It has 0 votes and Popularity is at 0.000000, since it was uploaded 2 months ago. And there is a non Git version that is not listed (probably not affected) at https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/deepseek-tui . On top of it, on their website https://deepseek-tui.org/#install the main recommended way to install it is with npm and there is even a way to build it with Rust it seems (I'm a bit unsure).
So I don't think it hit that many users, as only a couple of people since Mai would want to install it, and they have to have updated it to build from source in recent days. That is a very narrow number of people, just by my gut feeling.
Thank you for verifying!!
friends don't let friends use the AUR
What's the alternative?
I only use official and flatpak, I wouldn't even use flatpak if official had more.
Chaotic aur might be worth looking into if aur is what you want. Everything there is theoretically checked.
Are you sure about chaotic? I removed it as I thought it wasn't really checked as I read in a comment here.
might be worth looking into
I'm not sure of anything, I would look into it further were I planning on using it, which I might do in the future, Garuda KDE lite looks like a decent distro.
From the little I have looked into it, it is all meant to be checked, adding an extra layer of protection, as long as your trust the people behind it (much like official I guess)
Man I feel like I dodged a bullet switching to Fedora right before this AUR fuckery started to happen...
You don't have to use AUR to use Arch. Just like PPA for Ubuntu or Fedora's Copr.
I wonder if Ubuntu PPAs are also compromised
The chances malicious packages live in PPA now is quite high. Perhaps their adoption procedures are not conducive to the same type of attack AUR is experiencing.
Do I really need to audit my system again?
Not if you follow the normal safety precautions for using the AUR. There are several things you can do to look for red flags, but the most essential thing is to read the PKGBUILDs. And helpers like yay, paru and Shelly can all show diffs which makes that much easier after the initial installation because in most cases you'll just see that the version and checksum has changed which means it's as trustworthy as last time.
This has always been the case, and will continue to be the case unless the Arch team restricts the AUR which quickly can make it lose exactly what makes it so good.
I feel like when this pops up everyone freaks out and yells about how it's proof the aur sucks and arch is doomed. Do you people randomly install GitHub repos without any due diligence? Do you click on random ads to download bake bean can cursors? There's malware fuckin everywhere. Just do your due diligence and don't get screwed. And if you do get malware, have a plan to make it irrelevant. Anyone who doesn't do these things should in no way be using the AUR.