[adriancr]

> 1. Not all package managers come with signing keys or actually check them.

Seems like a very big problem with those package manager... Ubuntu as far as I'm aware does proper signing. (as any sane distro and hell, microsoft too)

I would not be using those package managers.

> 2. "Sooner or later" - weasel words.

What's your point?, I trust Ubuntu/Red Hat to keep their keys safe. I trust that google project zero and others would notice anything spooky.

I do not trust a random distro with only a few users to keep their keys safe and I do not use that.

It's also hard to do a proper attack when you have:

ubuntu -> (n) mirrors -> me

Ubuntu can't push a malicious package directed at me (I go via mirrors which can be picked at random)

Mirrors can't push a malicious package directed at me (they would need ubuntu signing keys, and someone would need to own all of them or be very lucky)

And if someone does compromise Ubuntu's keys, they're not going to go after me and risk getting detected that way.

There is a lot more security built into package managers then what I said compared to 0 you get on curl|bash.

[simiones]

That's true if you're using Ubuntu's repos. But a lot of software on Linux comes as a key that you need to tell apt to trust, and then a repo that uses that key. This is just as unsafe, if not more unsafe, than curl | bash - it gives me a way to not just send you malicious code today, but also any other time you apt upgrade.

[adriancr]

We are talking on an article that highlights a major flaw of curl|bash.

The website owner can determine if you are just downloading to investigate script or if you are downloading and running.

In the last scenario the owner can decide to give you bad code and you won't know what happened / can't prove that the website owner did anything to you.

With APT the owner cannot see which case it is in, someone can always investigate what is being published by just downloading a package.

Otherwise, as you noted - if you trust the wrong person you will get owned either way, but curl|bash is inherently more dangerous due to easy targeting.

(I can push a package in apt via curl|bash too so it gets upgrade regularly)

[mannykannot]

While this technique allows an attacker to avoid revealing the exploit if you simply redirect the curl output to a file, it will contain tell-tale information (in this case, bufferloads of zero bytes) allowing one to discern that it is up to no good.

The author hints at other techniques for detecting curl|bash (http or dns callbacks), which would obfuscate but not completely mask the attacker's intentions.

Note that I'm not advocating for using curl|bash: it's a technique for gathering low-hanging fruit, and there's no point in putting yourself in that position.

[adriancr]

Quick note - I've had this happen to me.

- browser crash

- I reload last website

- crash again

- I know that site has an exploit - so I try curl to get the payload - it's no longer there.

- I set up wireshark - open up in browser - exploit no longer there.

I'm now stuck with no way to figure out what happened, core dump is useful to prevent the crash but not find the code that triggered it.

So disconnect / fresh install OS.

This kind of targeting can happen now with curl|bash detecting if you install or just download.

[mannykannot]

It would require somewhat more sophistication on the attacker's part to detect curl|tee|bash being run in a VM, I think. Also, can you start bash with tracing on? Or put awk in the pipeline to turn it on, and also filter out attempts to turn it off?

[oblio]

Package managers include npm, bundler, maven, gradle, cargo, etc, not just distro ones.

[adriancr]

and those package managers need to have security built into them as well.