• mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    45 minutes ago

    COPR: “You guys are actually sharing your packages with other people?”

  • RustyNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 hours ago

    As a nix user, I wouldn’t laugh. We are vulnerable to this type of attack as well.

    Heck, it’s surprising we aren’t full of malware considering how many packages there are, and an easy supply chain attack vector with auto RyanTM PRs.

    • juipeltje@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 hours ago

      It’s possible, but at the very least someone glances over the derivation since it’s part of the actual nixpkgs repo right? AUR on the other hand is a wild west.

      • RustyNova@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yeah if the url is https://i_hack.you/ yeah that will be easy to spot. But imagine an attacker just to a “patch update”, updating the url and hash to the malicious repository, and use a typo squatted domain/repository, that will make it harder to spot.

        • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          47 minutes ago

          No, it would actually be quite easy to spot.

          Nixpkgs templates the source code url fro the url, and then it injects a variable

          Here is an example from bash:

          pname = "bash${lib.optionalString interactive "-interactive"}";
              version = "5.3${fa.patch_suffix}";
              patch_suffix = "p${toString (builtins.length upstreamPatches)}";
          
              src = fetchurl {
                url = "mirror://gnu/bash/bash-$%7Blib.removeSuffix fa.patch_suffix fa.version}.tar.gz";
                hash = "sha256-DVzYaWX4aaJs9k9Lcb57lvkKO6iz104n6OnZ1VUPMbo=";
              };
          

          If the url were to be changed, it would show up as a change in git when someone is reviewing before merging.

    • danhab99@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I don’t see how it would happen. Nix is immune bc hashes are constantly checked, you can’t swap in malicious code without a person noticing bc it might throw a mismatched hash error. Also nixpkgs has been really good about vetting packages, I don’t expect them to look too closely into the source codes of everything but if something malicious were to happen like what is happening to AUR someone would see it way faster

      • RustyNova@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The AUR attack attacked the build files. On nix, you could easily set a new download url for the package, set the new hash, and claim the project has moved to a new repo/site.

        That would require a second person to vet on it, but it could be seen as normal for a maintainer not in the know about the project.

        New packages are harder to pass, but it could also work.

    • Kronusdark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yea. especially if you use flakes heavily. It’s so decentralized it could take longer to catch.

  • sudoMakeUser@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I remember when, I think it was either a log4j or CUPS malware attack, Debian remained unaffected because the packages in its repos was too old.

  • Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Running both … Nixpkgs will rightfully laugh about this - in about a month once they caught up on recent events.

    Loving both arch and nixos though!