• VivianRixia@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Thankfully I’m clear, but I am guilty of haphazardly installing junk from the AUR, I should clean that up and uninstall everything but the stuff I really use.

    • rozodru@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      16 hours ago

      yeah when I was using Arch I was also an AUR junky. if this was happening back then I know I would have 100% been screwed.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    17 hours ago

    They should have some sort of static code scanners on the repos at rest at this point that look for certain patterns and issue warnings.

    • boatswain@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Polymorphic malware is probably one of the easier things to do with LLMs, so static scanners seem of limited use.

    • deadcade@lemmy.deadca.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Since this installed a malicious dependency from NPM (and later with bunjs) in the pre install script, it would need at least complex correlation to catch. Maybe building and installing all AUR packages, which would cost far too much for the Arch team.

      Individually and automatically scanning only the PKGBUILDs (the stuff actually on the AUR) would likely not have caught this.

      That doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea to run a basic scan over every change, but it wouldn’t magically “fix” aur malware.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        It’s enough to build a pattern match and scan against it being elsewhere. Surely they did at least much to find all these packages with malware.

    • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I wish it was that simple but I doubt there is any scanner that can differentiate between legitimate and malicious code.

      Maybe an AI but even then it would probably be quite unreliable.

        • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Maybe. But an unreliable scanner means a human has to check all the false positives and false negatives which can quickly take a lot of time for projects that are run by benevolent devs.

          It’s really important to keep in mind this is done for free and that supply chain attacks like this one are very hard to identify.

          I mean this is usually not the devs being careless, it’s very complex attacks on projects with very limited ressources. Attackers even sometimes choose purposefully projects that are “understaffed” (well, more understaffed than others).

  • DevDave@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Definitely a few unfortunate victims to stuff like libyami if using some sort of shell autocomplete. Few others would likely catch younger people, eg the implied apk side channel deployment packages.

  • northernlights@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    16 hours ago

    how did this happen? the linked thread show people identifying the infected packages and cleaning them up but no word about how it happened or how to prevent it.

    • rozodru@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I think it was essentially orphaned stuff that got “picked up” by a “new maintainer” and that’s how it happened.

        • Telorand@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          15 hours ago

          You’re only affected if you use the AUR. As far as I understand it, the core packages themselves are fine, so this is more of a MitM attack, where somebody compromised the package download streams

            • Telorand@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              13 hours ago

              How is it not? They didn’t take over the core projects, they took over the midstream distribution.

              • northernlights@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                12 hours ago

                A MitM attack defines the attack technique, not the target. It’s when the target wants to connect to something but it connects through you first, and you forward while collecting/altering data. My question was about the attack used. But yeah, a mass takeover of everything orphaned would do it.