Malware distributed on the AUR

lists.archlinux.org

[SECURITY] firefox-patch-bin, librewolf-fix-bin and zen-browser-patched-bin AUR packages contain malware - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

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.

Follow up

There are more packages with this malware found.

minecraft-cracked
ttf-ms-fonts-all
vesktop-bin-patched
ttf-all-ms-fonts

What to do

If you installed any of these packages, check your running processes for one named systemd-initd (this is the RAT).

The suspicious packages have a patch from this now-inaccessible Codeberg repo: https://codeberg.org/arch_lover3/browser-patch

The Arch maintainers have been informed of all this already and are investigating.

80 comments

this is going to increase in frequency as linux gains popularity
- This is why I felt uncomfortable when I first switched to Linux and kept reading that I didn't need to worry about viruses as long as I didn't click on dodgy links and only installed from trusted sources. I'm sure I'm betraying my lack of security knowledge here, but that always seemed a bit too easy.
  
  @DirkMcCallahan @Tundra The AUR isn't a trusted source, but most of the the Arch cult forget to mention that.
  
  The AUR, key words “user repository” is a specific weak point. It doesn’t have the same level of oversight that the main arch repo has. Stick to main repos and verified flatpaks and it’s very unlikely that you’d ever be compromised.
  Linux isn’t perfect, but it’s certainly better than windows where you just download executables willy nilly to install your software.
  
  That is sound advice, the AUR is most definitely not a trusted source though. For the normal arch repos the people who put the stuff there are known, they work for the project, you're as likely to get malware from one of those as you are to read an article bashing gamespot in gamespot, the people in charge of putting the packages there are the ones with more vested interest in things working so they won't knowingly introduce malicious code (plus it's a handful of people who know each other by first name).
  The AUR is a different story, because anyone can put stuff there it's very easy to have malicious code end up there. It doesn't happen that often because most of the time it's fairly obvious and it gets flagged straight away, plus if people start doing that people will migrate away from the AUR, so it's a high risk low reward situation. But as more and more people start to use Arch derivatives that come with the AUR enabled without understanding any of this it becomes a more rewarding thing to exploit.
  
  Yeah. The I'm A Mac crowd had the same problem... god damn it, two or three decades ago.
  As market share increases, platforms become a much bigger target for malware. And a lot of the "I don't need to run virus scans" crowds learn the hard way.
  Its the same with open source. Obviously NOBODY around here would parrot this bullshit, but there is the idea that because something is FOSS it is safe. Code is only as safe as code review and there have been a few high profile cases of social engineering to get malicious code past even fairly rigorous review. Let alone "Well, that script is FOSS so somebody probably reviewed it" that we see so often.
- True
- I use Debian btw
- Only for distributions which don’t do reproducible builds and require full and complete corresponding source code under an FSF approved license.
  If you choose to download binary blobs, good fucking luck.
  
  As if everyone were to read every single line of source code, though. This just increases the chances of it being discovered.
To be fair the AUR is known to be very susceptible to that kind of thing due to the effective absence of entry requirements.
- Absolutely.
  The Arch User Repository is a way for anyone to easily distribite software.
  Hence it has never been secure, and rather than claim it is, you mostly see people and documentation warn you about this, and to be careful if using it.
  Any schmuck can make whatever they want available via the AUR. That's how even the tiniest niche project can often be installed via the AUR. But you trade in some security for that convenience.
  
  It shouldn't be used as a marketplace, it should be used as a repository. You can probably find a lot of malware on GitHub, doesn't mean you go there to choose your text editor.
  I never search the AUR directly, I only use it if some README tells me I can install their software via an AUR package.
i don't use arch (btw).
- This is technically not Arch's fault btw. I use Arch but don't use AUR for this reason
  
  Also same problem adding random PPA's on Debian and Ubuntu.
  
  it was a joke. perhaps a /s was warranted. it could happen in any package manager/repo and I'd be surprised if it hasn't yet.
The affected malicious packages are:
librewolf-fix-bin
firefox-patch-bin
zen-browser-patched-bin
What a nice attack on privacy-friendly infrastructure.
And then, Arch AUR has such suspicious things like the Brave browser which claims to reduce tracking.... and works together with advertisers.
To be clear, AUR is fantastic if you develop some experimental package and you want to give it to your friends to try it out easily. But not as a general distribution mechanism.
We are getting to the point where inviting more people in means we will need an automated babysitter to watch for this shit and to pull it once it’s discovered. Apple has a walled garden approach that’s certainly taken a big chunk of malware threats out of their devices but their walled garden approach is ridiculous and impractical for Linux. The Microsoft method of monitoring and second guessing everything with antimalware programs is also suspect because it is super easy to abuse and resource intensive. We have clamAV but clam kinda sucks.
Linux is at the point where we need something that audits what’s going in and automatically yanks it back out remotely if it’s found to be a problem. Things can only be added by the user, but the bot can remove them without interaction of the user.
I don’t see this happening though. Instead, I see this as more of a rust vs C thing all over again, where valid critiques are drowned out by “improve your skills bro.”
- Heard OpenSuse has OpenQA - apparently it is like an automatic test tool for packages.
Wait what happens once some government or state actor hacks rust's install script rustup with its curl | bash install procedure and relying on TLS certificates which are e.g. issued by the Russian government. (No, the rust project won't use a Russian/Chinese/US Gov certificate but your browser will trust near all of them...)
- You're using that to download a program. If they can MitM the shell script, they can just as well MitM the program that you'll run right after the download...
  
  That is why Debian uses digital pgp signatures for all packages. And the GNU project uses strong cryptographic hashes for install packages.
  
  This is why we invented hash checking. Good thing they can't MITM where that's stored! /s
To check your system for those packages (assuming you are using bash):
bash

comm -1 -2 <(pacman -Q | awk '{print $1}' | sort) <(sort vulnerable_packages.txt)
With vulnerable_packages.txt containing one package name per line.
I already assumed aur was riddled with stuff like that.
Use a condom when fucking around in there.
I kinda watch the Arch devs packaged more stuff rather then relying on thr aur,Chaotic-aur (third party repo) solves mostly.
- The arch maintainers package more software than most other distributions. Some items they leave in the AUR by choice, if the Dev prefers it there. The key is to use the AUR sparingly and only if you trust the packager.
  
  The arch maintainers package more software than most other distributions.
  Sorry, but I fail to see this.
  I suppose if you're accounting literally all independent distros, then you're probably right. However, if we'd be more realistic and compare it to other well-established independent distros^[I'm basically counting Alpine, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, openSUSE, Slackware, Solus and Void. I didn't count Guix System and NixOS for how their 'repositories' are built different and therefore not easily comparable to the others.], then we notice that the vastness of the packages found in Arch's repository is rather lackluster at the very least. Heck, by virtually all metrics, Arch together with its derivatives undoubtedly belong in the upper echelons of usage stats; only being second to the Debian-family of distros. IMO, however, the size of its repository absolutely doesn't reflect this; as it's only bigger than Slackware, Solus and Void. The inclusion of these smaller projects is arguably charitable on my side*. But to drive the point home very clearly: Arch's repository is smaller than Alpine's, Debian's, Fedora's, openSUSE's and Gentoo's with a ratio of (about) two to one (except for openSUSE).
  
  Ok thanks, I never knew they package more stuff on the stock repos.
minecraft-cracked
Gotta assume that if any Arch users actually fell for that one, that they either let their kids use their device or they're generally not smart ( which absolutely goes against my stereotypical view of an arch user ).
- The stereotype of arch uses generally being smart is no longer. The "I use arch btw" meme brought a whole new user base to arch. You'll find them on r/unixporn showing off their hyperland rice that they copied from some other user..
  
  I had no idea that existed but I’ve just returned from r/unixporn. There are some sick setups. Also we all copy. My entire neovim config is copied and modified from a couple dozen setups I admired. Nothing wrong with copying things you like. Don’t gate keep Linux.
  However… Minecraft cracked is pretty funny lol.
The affected malicious packages are:
librewolf-fix-bin firefox-patch-bin zen-browser-patched-bin
So...did someone just like create a new package cloning these or did they somehow get into the "official" repository? Is there no attestation process?
- Aur is completely user controlled, it is not official and not trusted. Someone just decided to use those names and upload something.
  
  To be clear, when projects distribute their software via the aur, someone else can't just issue an update using their package name.
  This person appended "fix" and "patched" to appear in searches next to legitimate packages, and seem worth installing instead.
  
  Oof. Does this happen often?
the firefox, zen browser and libre wolf packages are concerning. The ttf ms font too. Those are very normal apps and unless you pay attention to the package name when doing "pacman -Syu", you would fall for the malware.
If only we can compartmentalize all AUR packages. The download AUR sources iirc are already in something like $HOME/.paru. Installing is a different story, because these packages can put their executable all over the places: /usr/local/bin, $HOME/local/bin.
- With respect, you wouldn't install these by just doing an update, so pacman -Syu is fine.
  You would have needed to install these manually, or a package that depended on them - both from AUR - so you'd also need to use yay (etc) to install them.
  But - I totally agree with your points that tge names look innocent enough for someone to install those over other packages.
  Always look at the AUR (website) at the package details - if it's new(ish) and has 0 or 1 votes, then be suspicious.
Why are they called "patched" and "fix" and who is installing them?

80 comments