[taneq]

I’ve never got my head around how it’s apparently the done thing these days to just copy a bash command from a website and run it (sometimes with sudo! O.o ) to install software. I somewhat naively hope that this is because everyone is pushing single purpose VMs for that kind of install, but really I know better.

[petalmind]

> to just copy a bash command from a website and run it (sometimes with sudo! O.o ) to install software.

how is that different from the good old days of

    wget ftp://ftp.something.org/software-2.10.tar.gz
    tar zxfv 
    ./configure
    make
    sudo make install

?

[Terr_]

Training people (esp. what passes for non-techies on Linux) to regularly copy-paste into the terminal is massively riskier than "click this URL". Just for starters, consider how easily you can make a web-page where you highlight X to copy it, but instead Y is delivered to your clipboard. Then on execute it could even redraw the terminal to pretend you pasted X all along.

Also, there's a convention or social-contract that everyone who downloads 2.10 ought to get precisely the same thing. This provides a foundation for other facets of security, like "it must have an expected hash" or "it must validate as signed by this public key". Also investigative actions like discovering when something suspicious got added, or detecting that the installer is trying to access the internet when it really shouldn't be.

[loa_in_]

Agreed, don't train fellow human beings (users) to follow, educate them.

"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." - commonly known quote.

We're making things so simple, the users don't get to have a proper chance at learning what's happening. Training people away from giving programs access, makes it opaque and dangerous. Unfortunately at the same time for non technology inclined users even Windows approach of file->Properties->Security visual UI proves challenging.

[mh-]

> Then on execute it could even redraw the terminal to pretend you pasted X all along.

Diabolical idea. Anyone know if there's been anything in the wild that did this?

[taneq]

They’re both executing unknown code, but hopefully the ftp site here is at least a trusted one, and if you feel paranoid you can verify the archive’s hash to help verify it hasn’t been monkeyed with.

Also the archive probably won’t go and fetch a bunch of other scripts and run them (probably…) while doing so is usually the script’s primary purpose. So you’re not just trusting the people who published the script, at the time they published it. You’re trusting them and everyone they trust to still be good actors now.

That’s different to it being the standard way to install self-published bundles of scripts from all over the internet.

[uecker]

Not much, and people also should not to do this. One should at least have a check of hash of the download vs some document signed with a key.

In any case, the curl|bash from a website is way worse as it leaves no trace. Here, you have an artifact, and multiple steps, so the probability that an issue can be detected is higher and when someone gets compromises one has a change to figure out what happened and warn others. (so good practice to copy the file somewhere else). People look at this only from purely "can I get compromised" perspective, but overlook this community aspect.

[paxys]

How is it different from downloading and running the application itself from that website?

[xeyownt]

The illusion of security.