| ▲ | WD-42 3 hours ago |
| I’ve been using arch for nearly 2 decades at this point. It’s amazing that the AUR went this long without any serious attacks. It’s a different world now. I can’t help but feel there used to be honor among hackers. You didn’t go after your own. What kind of jerk would attack Arch Linux? |
|
| ▲ | sp0rk 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > I can’t help but feel there used to be honor among hackers. You didn’t go after your own. What kind of jerk would attack Arch Linux? This has absolutely not ever been the case. |
| |
| ▲ | jolmg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It is, among most users, but it only takes a few abusing that for it to seem like there's none. EDIT: Rereading, maybe it's that other kind of "hacker"... | |
| ▲ | dmitrygr an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > This has absolutely not ever been the case. I think it was. Eg: on most russian warez forums in the 2000s, it was a bannable offense to crack russian-authored software. | |
| ▲ | DDayMace 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | yup there is no honor among thieves unfortunately | |
| ▲ | sejje 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | yes, hackers are bigger targets imo, not smaller ones |
|
|
| ▲ | static_motion 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The reason is popularity. SteamOS is Arch-based and in the hands of a ton of people who aren't necessarily that technical. CachyOS and EndeavourOS have become very popular with the increasing adoption of desktop Linux. The AUR thus becomes an enticing attack surface. |
|
| ▲ | al_borland 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I can’t help but feel there used to be honor among hackers. My assumption is these aren't so much hackers, as modern day script kiddies armed with LLMs and too much free time. |
|
| ▲ | jolmg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Arch is simply getting popular enough to be targeted. |
| |
| ▲ | hnlmorg 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It had been for a long time now. What’s more likely is the effort required for large scale attacks is easier now than ever thanks to LLMs. |
|
|
| ▲ | ivanjermakov 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm surprised installing native software is still commonplace. At least in a world of gaming and professional software it's coming from reputable source, but when it comes to PC enthusiasts we've been walking on thin ice for a long time. I also believe this is the main reason why web took off: effortless distribution and sandboxing. |
| |
| ▲ | michaelmrose 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | For open source software it would be a massive increase in development time, difficulty, and continued costs that dwarf income to switch to the web. It would be shocking if it happened not the reverse. This is just for application software how do you replace installing a library or development tool with the web? It's weird that installing software is weird to you. |
|
|
| ▲ | akerl_ an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think you've accidentally lumped together "people who work in tech in / around the field of information security" and "criminals". There have been a variety of cultural elements to people doing security research / hacking on their own systems / etc. There has never been "honor" among criminals looking to use technology to steal money or steal things that can be converted to money. |
|
| ▲ | cookiengineer 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > What kind of jerk would attack Arch Linux? The answer is: Russians Source: I'm the guy that built the antimiasma mitigation tool [1] and tracked their malware campaign iterations very closely. Set LANG to ru_RU.* and the malware implant stops spreading itself, as with all APT28/29 malware. [1] https://github.com/cookiengineer/antimiasma [2] https://cookie.engineer/projects/cyber-defense/antimiasma.ht... |
|
| ▲ | shevy-java 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Could be AI slop attacks made attacks easier in general. Though, the Arch Linux model was probably never an ideal security model. It seems the easy days of the 1990s are over finally. |
|
| ▲ | charcircuit 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Desktop Linux has always been a house of cards in regards to security. I agree it's amazing that it went on for so long, but this was inevitable. |
| |
| ▲ | Matl 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | With regards to sandboxing etc. maybe. With regards to packages? Official repos support signing and usually rely on maintainers with proven track records. AUR was a honor system and since some people are total basement losers, you can't rely on that. | | |
| ▲ | Alive-in-2025 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | We have locks on our doors for a reason. Any software that allows updates and relies on the honor system of "someone else must have checked this" will get hacked. Every day there's yet another certificate or secret stealing infection that is in some random upstream dependency in your dev tools or shell scripts or whatever. | | |
| ▲ | Matl an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, my point being this isn't some 'Desktop Linux security' hole. This was a known and intentional model of how the AUR operated for decades. Unfortunately it was bound to get exploited like this and so it did. | |
| ▲ | thayne 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Any software that allows updates and relies on the honor system of "someone else must have checked this" That is never how the AUR was supposed to work. Updates were intended to be a manual process where the user reviewed changes to the PKGBUILD. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mindlessg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Castles made of sand slips into the sea, eventually | |
| ▲ | GreenVulpine 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Better than the commercial alternatives | |
| ▲ | zahlman 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | More so than, say, Windows? Really? And no, "people using one Linux distro can opt in to possibly getting pwned by each other by making use of a third-party software depot" does not reflect upon the entirety of the Linux world. | | |
| ▲ | nvme0n1p1 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's funny how these people say Linux security is bad because random people can upload arbitrary files to AUR, but won't say Windows security is bad because random people can upload arbitrary files to Microsoft GitHub. | | |
| ▲ | davkan 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the wrongful notion comes from the fact that the vast majority of Arch users use and speak about AUR as if it were a part of arch proper, only paying lip service to reviewing PKGBUILDS, etc. They wrap the default package manager in one that supports AUR and never touch it directly again. It feels closer to if all of GitHub was available in one click through the Microsoft store or windows update. And unfortunately that’s how arch is mainly marketed by its users. “Arch has the latest everything, if it’s not in the repos it’s on AUR” is one of the standard selling points. Of course that speaks to how people use linux insecurely not how Linux is insecure. | | |
| ▲ | thayne 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Most AUR "helpers" show you the PKGBUILD and/or a diff thereof and ask you to confirm that it looks ok before continuing the install. At least by default. Maybe most users just ignore that and always answer yes without inspecting it. I don't know. But the wiki for the AUR and Readmes for many of these tools have warning banners telling you not to blindly trust AUR packages. |
| |
| ▲ | tosti 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | MS-Windows gets attacked by the hardware vendors, too. |
| |
| ▲ | Barrin92 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | >More so than, say, Windows? Really? significantly so. Windows has a coherent story when it comes to permissions and access. Differentiated out access controls, least privilege, UAC, mandatory integrity control and all configured out of the box. Without AppArmor or SElinux correctly configured, which it isn't on most desktop distributions in the linux world most of your apps can still read anything, there's little sandboxing. The NT Kernel was designed with an object model in mind so you always had the abilities to have rich descriptions and policies for whatever you're handling where all of that is bolted on unix systems after the fact. |
| |
| ▲ | tempfile 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I disagree. Maintainers for the major distributions take their roles very seriously, and do a very good job generally of filtering out malicious packages. The AUR is an outlier, being essentially an unmaintained wild west. | | |
| ▲ | saghm 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The AUR is also not really comparable to official distribution package repositories either. Yes, it's hosted by the same people as the official repos that are comparable to what you'd get by default on other Linux distros, but it's intentionally not something that works with official package management tooling. The equivalent would be if Debian or Ubuntu hosted a repo that anyone could upload of unbuilt debian packages while explicitly not offering any tooling other than the usual tools for building a .deb from source files that you manually downloaded from anywhere else or defined yourself. It's definitely an outlier, but more in terms of being something that doesn't really exist anywhere else, so of course the security model for it will also be an outlier. That's not an excuse for any security issues, but it's not like Arch doesn't have official repos with maintainers who are just as diligent as any other distro. They just also happen to provide a public git server that people can publish packages to with a UI for seeing some of the package metadata; people could just as easily write toolling to automate package management where it looks for a GitHub repo instead of an AUR one to fetch the build files. |
|
|