Did somebody get infected by installing https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/sex ?
I have like 4 things installed from aur, investigated each one first, and I'm still paranoid about all of them.
Real talk for a moment, there isn’t a system alive that currently solves the supply chain attack issue. there’s a trade-off between usability, and security. You can be a secure as you want to be, all it takes is a small accident by one developer in a package that you’re using, even if they’re using gpg signing to accidentally upload A package that’s been tampered. It stinks, but that’s the reality. What I think should be applauded is the thoroughness that the arch developers are going through the repo right now trying to find these packages. I don’t know the specifics, but if they’re like other open source developers, they’re unpaid people doing this out of their love for the software and community. and more than likely, this is a headache on top of headaches that they already have that they’re doing for the love of the community.
Relatively new Linux user here.
I've seen a few posts about malware on Linux mentioning things called AUR and NPM.
I understand they are package managers? Is that something I have to worry about as a Bazzite user?
As other people have stated, you do not need to worry about the AUR issue specifically since Bazzite is not based on Arch Linux. Also, unless you are building Node based application (node being a JavaScript based runtime environment), you shouldn't have to worry about that one.
That said, these platforms are just the latest targets because they have huge enterprise user bases. Any centralized repository has the potential for vulnerability, especially ones with unvetted user submissions.
Arch is a bleeding edge distro. Basically if you hear about some new feature coming to Linux, Arch probably had for about a week already. This obviously has its downsides like stability.
The AUR (Arch User Repository) is basically a list of scripts that anyone can put together. In the scripts are various commands to download a program and how to build/install it. Where it pulls from and how it does it is completely up the uploader. Which makes it extremely dangerous.
This is not representative of the rest of Linux systems and how they function. Arch's AUR is as close to downloading random installers from a website and running it on your Windows computer you can get.
As for NPM, it's basically the same thing for JavaScript libraries, but worse.
AUR is something related only to Arch Linux. Bazzite is not related to Arch, so you're good.
NPM is the Node Package Manager. Unless you're doing something like installing Node JS stuff then you don't need to worry about this. I feel fairly confident that this is one of those things where you'd know if you were using it.
npm: Node Package Manager.
AUR: Arch User Repository.
Bazzite is based on fedora not Arch so you don't need to worry.
Ah alright, thanks for the info!
Not likely. Just know that AUR is user driven and not checked or vetted.
Yeah, I try to stick to the native flatpak manager for bazzite. Are there any other vetted software managers out there that you would recommend?
Not really, almost any method (that is managed) is fine. Just read about where its coming from before downloading. Even user based is fine, if you trust it.
Why is adoption a thing in this way though? People compare AUR to github which seems very apt, but on Github no-one can come and take over the URL of an abandoned repo for rhemselves, if someone wants to start maintaining and the old owner is MIA, they have to make a fork. Why doesn't AUR work the same way but instead allows anyone to take over any abandoned project with no checks?
The forking option wouldn't work as well as it does on github because AUR packages are not namespaced like GitHub repos, e.g. communism/mypackage; instead it's just mypackage. So if adoption required a new name you'd have mypackage-cont, mypackage-cont-cont, or whatever. And it wouldn't really be possible to introduce username namespacing because AUR packages are just Pacman packages that are community-contributed rather than official, and Pacman, like most package managers, doesn't namespace their package names; firefox is just firefox rather than, say, mozilla/firefox. Some AUR packages get added to the official repos so when you do, e.g. yay -Syu, you'll then install the official package if you previously had the AUR package installed as it has the same name.
There isn't a perfect solution. Even if package adoptions were moderated, someone could take over a package and initially push a genuine commit, and then their next commit is malicious. Reviewing every single AUR commit would be incredibly labour-intensive. Possibly you could add automated checks for commits that suddenly add an npm install or other suspicious command with regex, but attackers could just get cleverer about avoiding those regex checks. Imo the best solution is just more widespread warnings about the fact that AUR packages are community-contributed with no guarantees of safety (e.g. on the Arch wiki where it sometimes suggests users install AUR packages), and AUR helpers forcing users to read PKGBUILDs before installation.
Official packages are already vetted so they don't need user scoping. They could just enforce user scoping in the AUR and use the provides array for resolving conflicts. Its not a perfect solution but there's no such thing as perfect security, just better security.
Also having an AUR helper that properly containerized the build step would be an even bigger improvement.
Meanwhile, Windows users: btw, first time? 💀🪢
Back when I was learning arch they made sure you understood AUR is an option, it was never a good option. Even then the risks were just not worth it.
My understanding the AUR was it was supposed to be a “here’s how I made this work.” But it gets treated as a generic repo all the time so…this.
A lot of people probably won't like this, but personally I feel like Arch is a terrible OS from an average user's perspective. It offers nothing notable of value to its users, while making sacrifices in critical areas.
Unstable as hell and constantly breaks for no reason. On top of that, it's seriously insecure, as shown on exhibit A. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.
Why not use Mint, Fedora, Zorin, Pop!_OS, or any of countless Linux distros that work perfectly and don't suffer from Arch's issues?
Note: I'm not an OS developer and mean no hate towards Arch devs or users. I'm simply speaking from a user experience perspective.
The reason I started using Arch is because I got tired of waiting (and waiting and waiting and waiting) for upgrades to hit the repos. That's if the software was even available in the repos in the first place (and many times it wasn't).
When I tried out Arch, it was like a breath of fresh air. Not only did it have the latest versions of everything, almost every program was available somehow (either official or from AUR).
Yes, it does break sometimes. That's why Garuda takes a snapshot of your system when you upgrade. If your system breaks, you can roll back to a previous working version. I haven't had Garuda break in years, though.
"Unstable as hell", "breaks for no reasons", "seriously insecure", other distros "work perfectly". I find this kind of uninformed hyperbole tiring, but probably entirely descriptive of your own user journey. Arch is intended for technical users, not "average users" (Whatever that means), and people should not be recommending that their uninitiated friends start their Linux journey there unless they're prepared and capable of providing technical support. I used Fedora and Ubuntu for decades before moving to Arch a few years ago, and I've never loved an OS more than I love this one. But that's my journey.
What's more important is impressing upon people how configurable Linux is. If your first distro was a bad experience, try a second distro. Try a third! Try a different DE. Switch from GNOME to KDE.
Everyone has their own preferences and experiences. Arch remains one of my top used Linux distros, maybe 2nd most used overall. Switching away from it was a great decision for me. For others, switching to it may have been great.
and people should not be recommending that their uninitiated friends start their Linux journey there
This is a good point, and perhaps one of the main issues. However, part of the blame rests on Arch developers, because for some reason they try to make it more accessible (like including the arch install script in the official iso). So the "Arch is intended for technical users" is less true, as per devs themselves.
Arch is deliberately minimal making it a good base system in the same way Debian or Fedora is. It's smaller, simpler, updates faster than the others and is far more configurable. It is however not built for the average user and most distros built on top of it that try to make it more "usable" are IMO pretty dangerous ideas. I think the only derivative i've tried that was good was SteamOS because they made it Atomic like nix or silverblue.
None of this really has to do with the AUR. That was always labelled as "use at your own risk". And to their credit they caught and addressed the attack within a day of it happening. Still, hosting user PKGBUILDs and leaving it to individual users to audit them is not a secure solution, its just punting on the responsibility.
How is it any more configurable than other distros?
"More easily configurable" would be more accurate, because there's less things that could get in your way. The system is designed to make it as simple as possible from a developers perspective.
Get off my lawn!! ...mumbles something incomprehensible about Slackware.
Its the same config file designed in the exact same way. The only difference is on Arch the user may know how their system fits together but they very well may not.
Or maybe I can agree with "more configurable" if I shift my perspective of configuration to be taking a default and adding/removing. Because arch users will add a lot of things and pre configured distros wont need to add as many things and maybe that means more configuration is happening. Even though both users can theoretically add and remove the same amount.
My experience is arch is more stable than ubuntu. Broke once in the last 10 years, because of a bug in a package, fixed the system with manual upgrade from live usb in 1h. AUR is not part of the archlinux repositories, it's a community thing with mostly the same security problems every similar package manager has (npm, gems, etc.)
1-1, we did not learn anything except you don't like arch.
AUR is not part of the archlinux repositories
Looks like you've never been to the Arch Linux website. The AUR link sits right next to the official Packages link. Only upon clicking the link you get a moderately visible disclaimer that "AUR packages are user produced content.", which is also true for all other packages, so it's not exactly clear what it means.
I mean, seriously, if that's not being 'part of the archlinux repositories', then I guess Arch has no repositories.
The arch wiki page for the AUR has a big, vibrant red box in the intro section stating:
Warning AUR packages are user-produced content. These PKGBUILDs are completely unofficial and have not been thoroughly vetted. Any use of the provided files is at your own risk.
If you have ever installed something through the AUR in the intended way, you would know that it does not involve running the package manager tool until the very last step. You need to git checkout the package recipe, build it. This is clearly what the post you are answering to meant by "not part of the arch linux repositories".
That's cool and all, but why is that full disclaimer not present on the AUR part of the Arch website? Only a portion of it, which to me at least, makes limited sense.
You go to archlinux.org, you press on AUR, there's no disclaimer about AUR packages not being thoroughly vetted, you find a package you need, and you do yay -S package.
To give Arch some credit - Arch wiki does state that "AUR helpers are not supported by Arch Linux.", in a red warning at the top of the page. That's precisely the kind of disclaimer that, in my opinion, should be posted on the AUR website. Nobody goes to the wiki if they don't need it.
At the end of the day, this may be an argument over nothing, because even if Arch developers adopted my suggestions, I realize it wouldn't noticeably affect anything.
It's more about principles. The OS itself may be (or may have been) targeted towards technical users. But then more user-friendly tools were created, which the developers know perfectly well are used by almost all Arch users. Furthermore, they themselves adopt some of these tools, making the OS less for technical users, and more for average users.
Knowing full well the risks, they refrain from putting adequate warnings and disclaimers where people would actually see them. While they may not be at fault, this just looks a lot like corporations that technically aren't guilty of anything, but are aware of issues and don't even try to solve them, while actively increasing the risk of more people being affected.
I mean, genuinely, why aren't the disclaimers from Arch wiki present on the Arch Linux website? What's stopping the Arch team from putting them there?
I mean, you are right in this sense I guess. I see this topic from the POV of an arch user in the original sense: I installed the OS myself and made concious decisions about how I built up my OS, I by default read the wiki, I know why and how I do what in my system installation. From my POV it is obvious that there is no problem here. But maybe due to the rise of the user friendly arch-based OS-es (which is an oxymoron in my opinion) the current state of the OS should be reevaluated.
In the end, my opinion still is that if you use tools like yay, you are probably not the target audience, and maybe got lured into using arch due to the memes or stigma. Maybe the entry barrier should be lifted in the sense that for example the AUR and archinstall are split off the project into their separate own thing. Weird situation IMO...
You said Ubuntu three times. /s
AUR is supposed the last resort, after distro repos, building from source, Flatpak, and Appimage. Ubuntu's equivalent to the AUR would be PPAs.
Personally, I have fewer problems gaming on Arch than any other I've tried.
Edit: Snap is bad for software freedom. I won't touch Ubuntu anymore; if I use apt, I meant apt and not snap. Hijacking my command is Microsoft-style rug-pulling.
I'm not a fan of Ubuntu either, but at least it doesn't break or get hacked every week.
AUR is supposed the last resort, after distro repos, building from source, Flatpak, and Appimage. Ubuntu's equivalent to the AUR would be PPAs.
That's the problem. AUR is not the last resort. There's nobody who would build an app from source before installing it through AUR. Most people wouldn't even use appimages over AUR.
Even on the official Arch Linux website, 'AUR' is literally right next to 'Packages', making it seem like a good and secure way of installing applications. Which it isn't.
He said Debian 3 times
I had heard that Ubuntu is an old African word for "can't configure Debian"
I'm not going to lie the aur never made sense to me. If you are going to go to all that trouble why not just package it. Source packages are a thing.
The developers themselves are often not the package maintainers. Before a package is published or updated in one of the official Arch repos, it has to be built, tested, and sometimes patched (which is why you see a -1, -2, etc. appended to the package version), in order to work correctly not just on its own but in an Arch system with Arch packages that it is likely to encounter. The process is not as thorough as Debian for example, but it's still the responsibility of the package maintainer. If the package is still in early development, deprecated (e.g. wine32), an out-of-tree kernel module (e.g. xpadneo-dkms), or is meant to be built from the latest available commit (any number of *-git packages), the AUR is a convenient way to share PKGBUILD files rather than have the user build the software manually based on a readme, if it even includes build instructions. The PKGBUILD is then ingested by makepkg, which both configures the environment and builds the software, and outputs a package that can then be installed and managed by Pacman.
The caveat is that packages built from the AUR are not vetted by any package maintainers. They can have bugs, they might depend on outdated or no-longer-existent packages, or might contain malware.
it makes sense to me. remove as much friction from the publishing process as possible, so you get a huge amount of packages. this incident just shows they removed a little too much.
there are so many niche packages on the aur useful to so few people that nobody would go through the official process to properly package, test, and maintain them.
for example: vscodium is a fork of vscode, but microsoft disables the marketplace for it. the vscodium-marketplace package from the aur adds it anyway. i don't think any regular repos have these kind of hacks and patches available.
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
sudo in Windows.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.