top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 100 points 1 year ago (1 child)

TL;DR: Don't think of the AUR as a package source, but as of an only mildly moderated, but ultimately free and open, sharing platform for PKGBUILDs, primarily useful for (self-)packagers, not necessarily non-technical end users.

Before the AUR, you had people individually hosting their PKGBUILDs anywhere, sometimes on GitHub or the BBS (yeah, it's been a while), sometimes along with a repository URL you could add to your pacman.conf to install packages right away, and it was glorious. I didn't have to write a working PKGBUILD myself from scratch, and I could decide if I trusted that particular packager to not screw me sideways with a pre-built package. An officialized "Trusted User" (TU) role emerged from this idea, which has recently been renamed to Package Maintainer (PM). This is fundamentally still how the AUR works, it just became much bigger, and easier to search for particular software. Packagers gift to you their idea of how software should be packaged, for you to expand upon, take inspiration from, or learn, or use as-is if you determine it to be good for your purpose.

The AUR is ultimately a great resource for packagers, and still useful for users, but "true end users" get the extra repository, and community, kind of, before that, and should try to avoid the AUR if they can, or at least be prepared to put in effort to establish trust, or get help.

A handful of Package Maintainers are manually adopting and subsequently vetting for sufficiently popular packages to move them from the AUR to the official extra repository, which is deemed safe to use as-is, on a best-effort basis. Obviously, this is a bottleneck, as it is not feasible for the few volunteering PMs to adopt and maintain 10k+ AUR packages and be held to any quality standard. That's why "you are on your own" with the AUR.

On the positive side, there's a voting system to determine package popularity. AUR packagers have a public list of maintained packages, and a comprehensive git commit history. Establishing trust is still crucial, and I feel hard pressed to name a reasonably popular/useful package that isn't already in extra or has been maintained in the AUR for a long time.

The biggest risk, IMHO, for malware getting slipped into a package is orphaning a popular package, and having it adopted by a malevolent user. This is something I personally look out for. If the maintainer changed, I make sure to check the commit history to see what they did. Most of the time it's genuine fixes, but if anything is changed without a damn good and obvious reason, hit up the AUR mods and ask for help. This is how malware is spotted. Also, typically only the version is bumped in a PKGBUILD on an update, which is a change I feel safe waving through, too. If the download URI changes, or patches are added, I do look at them to determine the reason, and if that isn't explained well enough to understand, that's a red flag. Better ask someone before running this.

source: personal involvement in Arch since 2002

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 71 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Does anyone else manually review PKGBUILDs before installing or upgrading anything from the AUR?

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 1 year ago*

    I do, but not as closely or as often as I should. Recent malware is a reminder to be careful, I think I was starting to take the AUR for granted as a repo when really it’s still the Wild West.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 50 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    I smell something fishy going on. I've been using the AUR for a long time and I'm now just hearing of malware?

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 91 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    There's been malware in the past, not only that - AUR is user submitted. It's in the name. They warn you to double check what you're installing. It is functionally similar to running a random installer you found on GitHub.

    It seems like these instances are being intentionally blown out of proportion, but I don't see what there is to gain by doing that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    It is functionally similar to running a random installer you found

    So basically how Windows users have been acquiring their software for the last 30 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Technical users that are comfortable at a command line often use WinGet these days. It works in Windows Sandbox too; you just need to manually install it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    WinGet is nothing more than a list of random packages on Github.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    My ranking of package managers on Windows:

    1. Chocolatey: the oldest and has the most packages. Packages are AV scanned. Enterprisey.
    2. Scoop: Somewhat fewer packages, but easier to package for. More technical focus. FOSSy.
    3. Winget: fewest packages, and Microsoft literally stole it from its creator. I’m not aware of any reason to use winget over choco or scoop.
  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    It's an obvious vector for malware, arch by default doesn't come with it, and users have been warned the entire time to check pkgbuild. There's nothing fishy, it's just that arch has enough users to be worth it to hit it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 31 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Some people ask me why I use Flatpak on Arch. This is one of the reasons.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    does the upgrade pacman -Syu also upgrade Flatpak packages? Or you have to do them separately?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Separately, through flatpak update.

    Or together with everything through other tools. I go with pamac, it can be used both in CLI and GUI and update and install everything at once - repos, AUR and Flatpak.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    I use NixOS so everything is second party

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    And every package is added and maintained by volunteers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    A vast number of volunteers, far exceeding Γ°e proportional popularity of Nix. It's as if every Nix user submits a package.

    But Nix hasn't achieved Γ°e popularity Arch has, yet, so it's probably flying under Γ°e attacker radar.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    I've been using Debian for years and prefer deb based systems, but recently I messed a bit around with Manjaro, and the amount of packages only available from the AUR is, erm, remarkable.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    At risk of repeating myself from another comment here: you can access the AUR from other distros by making an Arch distrobox. It's actually super easy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    So, you can install malware on other distros from the AUR?

    Usually if the software I want is not on debian's repos, I'll try to get the source and compile it, or last resort, use an appimage. I'm not really fond of mixing different installation methods coming from different distros, but... it's good to know.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    I discovered recently, ΓΎanks to a discussion wiΓΎ a Lemmy user, Γ°at NixOS has even more. I was surprised. Looking at Γ°e relative popularity of Γ°e distributions, and Γ°e number of package contributors of each, I'm guessing Γ°at many NixOS users submit packages. I guess when configuring your system is essentially Γ°e same as building a package, Γ°e submission barrier is lower. Also, NixOS seems to make pushing flakes up into Γ°e shared repos for everyone else to use almost trivial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    is your keyboard layout misconfigured

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Some people like linguistics. There are several communities about reforming English or its spelling. There's also some YouTubers making videos on that subject.

    The YouTuber Rob Words has a whole playlist about the alphabet used in English, and how it could be changed.

    I hope the person is not getting downvoted just because they are spelling differently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Aur is probably the main reason why many people use Arch and derivatives. However, many users are unaware that aur is not an official Arch repository and that, as you say, you are the one who has to monitor the pkgbuilds of each installed aur package. Normally the most used aur packages tend to generate more confidence but that does not prevent that package to include malicious software in a version change and having root access to the system can take control of certain system services. That's why I always recommend not using Aur and that's why I've always found Manjaro to be a great distribution, as it retains packages for a few days to check them and discourages the use of aur. Any security measure is too little and that's why any security tool you can configure is advisable. In a rolling distribution where new code is constantly entering the system, it is essential to have selinux and secureboot enabled.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    Aur is probably the main reason why many people use Arch and derivatives.

    FYI, non-Arch distros can use AUR with an Arch distrobox. So people shouldn't be using Arch just for AUR.

    Being in a distrobox may or may not protect your system from potential malware, that I cannot say.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    It used to be my reason too, but after breaking my system by my own hand many times, I realized the aur isn't worth the effort, for me at least.

    I'd rather build from source, for software that isn't maintained in the repos.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago*

    By user "Forsen on top" fucking KEK

    Also yeah it’s chrome, obviously it’s malware

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Meanwhile me who using CHAOTIC-AUR be like :

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Is this post intended to be a sort of outcry around the idea that there's a risk of malware being in the AUR?

  • source
  • Malware in some user-made package on the internet?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί