6 ms·

You didn't answer the 'random ip' question. > Piping curl, means you can't be sure it came from the author's site. Assuming you take the same precautions you'

You didn't answer the 'random ip' question. > Piping curl, means you can't be sure it came from the author's site. Assuming you take the same precautions you'd take with any other software download (like using https), there's no difference between curl-piped-to-sh and clicking on a link to a rpm, deb, exe, or anything else. > It means a broken connection is a broken install Not if the shell script is written correctly. And if you can't trust the source of your software to get that right, then you can't trust them to get the regular installers right either, so there's no difference here either. > Don't install random binaries either No one's advocating for random binaries, but you do have to install binaries from time to time, no? Or are you getting your CPU microcode updates in source form too? I get it, it's a knee-jerk cargo-cult reaction to flame folks who don't see the huge issue with piping a https URL from the software's main web site to the shell, but if you actually think about it, it does not have the major flaws that you claim it does.

shakna 9y ago
> You didn't answer the 'random ip' question. Just because you have a URL, doesn't mean it is connecting to the expected IP. Not everyone uses https yet. Not everyone uses HSTS to protect against downgrading. > Assuming you take the same precautions you'd take with any other software download (like using https), there's no difference between curl-piped-to-sh and clicking on a link to a rpm, deb, exe, or anything else. And that assumption isn't a guarantee. Remember who these kinds of installs target: developers with little experience. You can't ensure they'll notice a missing 's'. You can't ensure a worn-out admin will either. > Not if the shell script is written correctly. And if you can't trust the source of your software to get that right, then you can't trust them to get the regular installers right either, so there's no difference here either. No. I can't. Have a glance over Heroku's Ubuntu script.[0] It's not fenced, if that echo breaks, it could case some chaos. In fact, none of the commands are even checked for success, except the su. > No one's advocating for random binaries, but you do have to install binaries from time to time, no? Or are you getting your CPU microcode updates in source form too? If you look one level up, it's specifically binary installers. And secondly, I use a package manager, which has some review of this kind of thing. I wouldn't curl a microcode update. That's asking for trouble. [0] https://cli-assets.heroku.com/install-ubuntu.sh https://cli-assets.heroku.com/install-ubuntu.sh
- jjnoakes 9y ago
  > Just because you have a URL, doesn't mean it is connecting to the expected IP. Ignoring how weak of an argument that is, I don't see how that is any different of a risk between curl-pipe-to-sh and regular software downloads. > Remember who these kinds of installs target: developers with little experience. I think that's a little condescending. I image these kinds of installers target folks who want to get up and running quickly and conveniently, regardless of their experience. And I imagine, on average, folks pasting this into their shell have more than average experience already, since they (1) went out of their way to try this software and (2) know how to open a shell and copy commands into it. > You can't ensure they'll notice a missing 's'. You can't ensure a worn-out admin will either. You think it's more likely they will notice the missing 's' in the click-to-download-the-installer scenario than in the paste-a-command-into-the-shell scenario? I find that hard to believe. > Have a glance over Heroku's Ubuntu script.[0] It's not fenced, if that echo breaks, it could case some chaos. So file an issue. If their normal installer has bugs in it, things would break too. I don't see the difference. Buggy installers are buggy, which is just an argument against buggy installers, not against different install methods. > I wouldn't curl a microcode update. You missed the point. You can download it any way you like; unless you have its source, though, you can't audit it at all. So your claim that binary software is untrustable falls short in the practical world.
  - shakna 9y ago
    > So your claim that binary software is untrustable falls short in the practical world. Where the hell do you think I made that claim? > So file an issue. Are you just trying to ignore everything I say? I responded to a claim that shell installers would be written correctly, with evidence that a fairly sizeable company doesn't get it right. Your response to that is that it doesn't matter. > You think it's more likely they will notice the missing 's' in the click-to-download-the-installer scenario than in the paste-a-command-into-the-shell scenario? I find that hard to believe. A giant green bar is a little bit more than a single letter. --- You really don't seem interested in a conversation about the shortcomings that exist. You seem interested only picking holes and saying that you are correct. I have no interest in responding to that kind of conversation.

shakna 9y ago

> You didn't answer the 'random ip' question. Just because you have a URL, doesn't mean it is connecting to the expected IP. Not everyone uses https yet. Not everyone uses HSTS to protect against downgrading. > Assuming you take the same precautions you'd take with any other software download (like using https), there's no difference between curl-piped-to-sh and clicking on a link to a rpm, deb, exe, or anything else. And that assumption isn't a guarantee. Remember who these kinds of installs target: developers with little experience. You can't ensure they'll notice a missing 's'. You can't ensure a worn-out admin will either. > Not if the shell script is written correctly. And if you can't trust the source of your software to get that right, then you can't trust them to get the regular installers right either, so there's no difference here either. No. I can't. Have a glance over Heroku's Ubuntu script.[0] It's not fenced, if that echo breaks, it could case some chaos. In fact, none of the commands are even checked for success, except the su. > No one's advocating for random binaries, but you do have to install binaries from time to time, no? Or are you getting your CPU microcode updates in source form too? If you look one level up, it's specifically binary installers. And secondly, I use a package manager, which has some review of this kind of thing. I wouldn't curl a microcode update. That's asking for trouble. [0] https://cli-assets.heroku.com/install-ubuntu.sh https://cli-assets.heroku.com/install-ubuntu.sh

jjnoakes 9y ago
> Just because you have a URL, doesn't mean it is connecting to the expected IP. Ignoring how weak of an argument that is, I don't see how that is any different of a risk between curl-pipe-to-sh and regular software downloads. > Remember who these kinds of installs target: developers with little experience. I think that's a little condescending. I image these kinds of installers target folks who want to get up and running quickly and conveniently, regardless of their experience. And I imagine, on average, folks pasting this into their shell have more than average experience already, since they (1) went out of their way to try this software and (2) know how to open a shell and copy commands into it. > You can't ensure they'll notice a missing 's'. You can't ensure a worn-out admin will either. You think it's more likely they will notice the missing 's' in the click-to-download-the-installer scenario than in the paste-a-command-into-the-shell scenario? I find that hard to believe. > Have a glance over Heroku's Ubuntu script.[0] It's not fenced, if that echo breaks, it could case some chaos. So file an issue. If their normal installer has bugs in it, things would break too. I don't see the difference. Buggy installers are buggy, which is just an argument against buggy installers, not against different install methods. > I wouldn't curl a microcode update. You missed the point. You can download it any way you like; unless you have its source, though, you can't audit it at all. So your claim that binary software is untrustable falls short in the practical world.
- shakna 9y ago
  > So your claim that binary software is untrustable falls short in the practical world. Where the hell do you think I made that claim? > So file an issue. Are you just trying to ignore everything I say? I responded to a claim that shell installers would be written correctly, with evidence that a fairly sizeable company doesn't get it right. Your response to that is that it doesn't matter. > You think it's more likely they will notice the missing 's' in the click-to-download-the-installer scenario than in the paste-a-command-into-the-shell scenario? I find that hard to believe. A giant green bar is a little bit more than a single letter. --- You really don't seem interested in a conversation about the shortcomings that exist. You seem interested only picking holes and saying that you are correct. I have no interest in responding to that kind of conversation.