Does anyone else manually review PKGBUILDs before installing or upgrading anything from the AUR?
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.
Sort of, but I don’t know what I’m looking for. It would be nice if folks explained what a bad one looks like.
I determine within the PKGBUILD (which I view from octopi) the URLs where code or binaries are downloaded from and then if those URLs seem trustworthy, e.g. how many stars or maintainers the github repo has. When the repo is small and doesn’t qualify for the latter criterias, I do a git clone and skim over the sources on the lookout for malicious URLs or strange code (never found anything in that regard). Also search for the package on https://aur.archlinux.org/ and look if other users have anything to say and how many votes it has.
Is the PKGBUILD file the main source of truth? Like does every other file and URL it accesses get mentioned somewhere explicitly in there? (perhaps transitively)
Yeah, paru makes it pretty easy to do, and can also build packages in a chroot, adding some extra security.
I do, also most aur-helpers skip or make reviewing a chore.
Also with paru. I mainly check that the download shows the correct URL and does standard stuff with it.
Yes, always!
at the risk of getting down voted I wonder if an LLM would spot it
I don’t know if it’s being done, but since AI is here to stay, and these sort of tasks seem to fit with their capabilities, maybe a group could carry out testing.
I smell something fishy going on. I’ve been using the AUR for a long time and I’m now just hearing of malware?
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.
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.
I don’t want to say stupid things, but I have so many theories. I check the shit out of a package before installing it. I even go to the GitHub page and make sure of things.
The AUR is made up of user packages
It isn’t crazy that malware made it in. It is very much a “user at your own risk.” Packages are reviewed but sometimes things slip in.
yeah, you get choice, and its better than a random closed exe in windows.
Some people have really odd expectations of “free” and “open”.
Is there a choosingbeggars community to repost this to?
Just make sure the aur wears a condom when it’s going to fuck you, like your mother told you.
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.
Some people ask me why I use Flatpak on Arch. This is one of the reasons.
does the upgrade
pacman -Syualso upgrade Flatpak packages? Or you have to do them separately?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.Separate
flatpak updateluckily it’s simple but not always obvious to the end user at first
generally when you want to install a flatpak it’s going to upgrade/update whatever other flatpaks you have installed before downloading and installing the new one.
This is not necessarily true and is dependent on your distro/whatever you use to install and update flatpaks.
But yes, this can be so.
What… This isn’t true at all.
welp dont’ know what to tell you but that’s what happens with me whenever I install a flatpak.
How do you install flatpak software? I use the gnome software app and it doesn’t do that.
via the terminal
I use NixOS so everything is second party
And every package is added and maintained by volunteers.
We’re called maintainers
Most maintainers are volunteers, but not all volunteers are maintainers…
Besides the obvious non-package work, if you make a single pr for some random package and never again, you’re not a maintainer.
The Nix ecosystem is developed by many volunteers and a few paid developers, maintaining one of the largest open source software distributions in the world.
demanding work that we cannot expect to be done by volunteers indefinitely.
If you add yourself to the maintainer list in your PR you’re a maintainer, even if it’s a maintainer of a single package
I’ve also used nixos but not arch. Is the AUR also volunteer maintained? How do they differ?
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.
Debian and Ubuntu based distros have PPAs which serve the same purpose as the AUR.
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.
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.
Is this post intended to be a sort of outcry around the idea that there’s a risk of malware being in the AUR?
Meanwhile me who using CHAOTIC-AUR be like :
Malware in some user-made package on the internet?
Idk I love the aur, just check comments and dont grab whatever the fk you see, I also have flatpak support tho (uninstalled snap, felt like I wanted all options but it was mostly useless, id pick an appimage over snap for the one or two things not on flathub/aur) Nothing popular like rexuiz was on the snap store but also had an appimage.
Was there for 2 days before it was caught and they would of had to be manually installed?
I think that’s much safer than any other platform I’ve heard of
