you can detect `curl | bash` server-side and serve a different payload for those (compared to curl -O file, wget etc), hence its an effectively undetectable attack vector.

Executables on the other hand can be inspected and prodded, so the likelihood of something going amiss and consequently security agencies finding out about it is significantly higher.

neither of those is secure of course, we're just discussing different levels of dangers. And curl|bash being worse, albeit not that much

(and the -L here is the extra cherry on top. piping a redirect to a shell is just monkas)

▲

medstrom 3 days ago | parent [-]

> you can detect `curl | bash` server-side

Oh wow, ok. So if anything, manually do `curl` and `sh` separately?

	▲	ffsm8 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		at that point, i'd put bash script up as being moderately more secure as its generally easier to audit them vs a binary. but i'Ve also gotta say that random binary download over web is also incredibly rare - usually its either a combination of both (the curl\|bash ending in a random binary being downloaded) or the user actually installing via a packagemanager like apt, zypper, yum, dnf etc - and those packagemanagers generally do audit the main repositories, so theyre basically as secure as you can get in those contexts. but of course, everyone has their own thread model and i dont work in security (●'◡'●)