Compromised Arch User Repository (AUR) Packages, installing RAT malware

a year ago by Fubarberry to c/archlinux

On the 16th of July, at around 8pm UTC+2, a malicious AUR package was uploaded to the AUR. Two other malicious packages were uploaded by the same user a few hours later. These packages were installing a script coming from the same GitHub repository that was identified as a Remote Access Trojan (RAT).

The affected malicious packages are:

librewolf-fix-bin
firefox-patch-bin
zen-browser-patched-bin

The Arch Linux team addressed the issue as soon as they became aware of the situation. As of today, 18th of July, at around 6pm UTC+2, the offending packages have been deleted from the AUR.

We strongly encourage users that may have installed one of these packages to remove them from their system and to take the necessary measures in order to ensure they were not compromised.

According to the gamingonlinux discord, the following packages are also suspected to be compromised:

https://aur.archlinux.org/...

If you have any of these packages installed, immediately delete it and check your system processes for a process called systemd-initd (this is the RAT).

Here is an analysis of the malicious payload: https://www.virustotal.com/...

slackness 33 points a year ago

save

path: 0 18311126, hotness: undefined, score: 33, children: 17

Eyck_of_denesle 3 points a year ago

Because i don't have a track the updates and manage it's uninstall

save

path: 0 18311126 18327008, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

ArtixCory 1 point a year ago

save

path: 0 18311126 18327008 18327439, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

patatahooligan 3 points a year ago

.install scripts which don’t have to be explicitly mentioned in the PKGBUILD if it shares the same name as the package.

Can you show a reproducible example of this? I couldn't get a .install included in a test package I made without explicitly adding it as install=<package>.install.

Most people claim they read the PKGBUILD (which I don’t believe tbh)

If you don't trust people to read PKGBUILD's I'm curious which form of software installation (outside of official repositories) you find safe.

save

path: 0 18311126 18313780, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 2

slackness 3 points a year ago

save

path: 0 18311126 18313780 18314339, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

Tenderizer78 2 points a year ago

save

path: 0 18311126 18313780 18314339 18316762, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

jatone 0 points a year ago

save

path: 0 18311126 18311622, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 4

slackness 7 points a year ago

save

path: 0 18311126 18311622 18311764, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 3

jatone 1 point a year ago

save

path: 0 18311126 18311622 18311764 18312901, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2

slackness 2 points a year ago

save

path: 0 18311126 18311622 18311764 18312901 18313704, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

Hawk 0 points a year ago

Might as well ditch your computer and grab a notebook.

save

path: 0 18311126 18331851, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

ArtixCory -2 points a year ago

You’re literally executing random shell scripts by strangers as root.

You're literally not doing that. Escalated permissions are needed for installing dependencies and installing the resulting package, not for building. Just try running makepkg as root and see what happens.

save

path: 0 18311126 18327446, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 5

sudo 2 points a year ago

Yes you literally do when you install the package. You're thinking of building the package. makepkg -i will prompt for root. pacman -U requires root. Both will execute the install() function of the PKGBUILD as root.

save

path: 0 18311126 18327446 18328638, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 4

ArtixCory 0 points a year ago

Not every PKGBUILD contains a .install file. So again, it is not inherently the case that you’re "literally executing random shell scripts by strangers as root." slackness has it right that most people probably don't read the install files, but it seems to me that their prevalence in the AUR is overstated here.

save

path: 0 18311126 18327446 18328638 18331356, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 3

slackness 1 point a year ago

save

path: 0 18311126 18327446 18328638 18331356 18336896, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2

Maragato 16 points a year ago

The higher the percentage of Linux usage the more likely it is that these cases will occur. Most people use Arch because of the aur repository without reading the Pkgbuilds and installing random programs from that repository that give root access to the system. Aur is a security hole in Arch and should only be used for trusted sources and programs that are widely used by the community and yet it is still a security hole for a system. When analysing this issue years ago I understood that it is better for me to have a system with a strong security configuration done by experts in the field. For me a distribution has to have these basic security tools to be considered a secure distribution: secure-boot, selinux and firewall. And along with these tools, do not install anything from external repositories. Only by fulfilling these requirements can we consider that we have a security-enforced linux distribution.

save

path: 0 18315678, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 1

IceFoxX 2 points a year ago

SDesk Arch with selinux but well not complete OSS. didnt tested it.

save

path: 0 18315678 18326122, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

Sandouq_Dyatha 6 points a year ago