3 ms·

No. I think I have never run `sudo make install`. Things I install come from package managers. Docker or a VM is used to test other software. And of course tr

No. I think I have never run `sudo make install`. Things I install come from package managers. Docker or a VM is used to test other software. And of course trust is important, but if I encounter things like `curl | bash`, my trust is lost.

yori 7y ago
What difference does it make if you run `make install` or `curl | bash`? In both cases, you are running code you have not audited yourself. Or are you the kind who inspects every Makefile and installer script before installing? If not, why is one better than the other?
- sudosysgen 7y ago
  Because at least with make install you can have some trust in the delivery method, ie encrypted git or whatever. If you use just plain http....
  - yori 7y ago
    So wget https://example.com/installer.tar.gz; https://example.com/installer.tar.gz; tar -xvzf installer.tar.gz; cd installer; make install is okay for you? But curl https://example.com/installer.sh https://example.com/installer.sh | bash is not? Why?
    - sudosysgen 7y ago
      I'm fine with the second too as long as the host is trustworthy and it's always https. Most of the time it isn't.
GordonS 7y ago
Whether it's `sudo make install` or `curl | bash`, in both cases you have the opportunity to first inspect the code that will be executed.
- Avamander 7y ago
  You don't have the opportunity in the latter case. https://www.idontplaydarts.com/2016/04/detecting-curl-pipe-bash-server-side/ https://www.idontplaydarts.com/2016/04/detecting-curl-pipe-b...
  - GordonS 7y ago
    Sorry, I don't follow. If I have a makefile, I can inspect it and see what it does. If I have shell script (or indeed a makefile!) that calls `curl | bash`, I can inspect that shell script and see the URL that is used with curl, and then inspect the contents that the URL returns.
    - Avamander 7y ago
      You can't see what comes from `curl | bash` before you actually pipe it to bash, click the link and read the article please.
      - GordonS 7y ago
        OK, I see - in theory, an attacker in control of the backend could write a handler that could craft a bash script that writes different content when `curl | bash` is used. TBH, while I take your point, I do think it's a little disingenuous of you to claim that "You don't have the opportunity" to inspect the script prior to executing it - you ordinarily will, but can't in the unlikely event of an attack like the article describes, which would require an attacker to be in full control of the web server. Off the top of my head, this could be mitigated in a couple of ways: 1. Hash a known-good script and check the hash matches prior to executing (this does however mean that you need to update the hash every time the remote script is changed) 2. Use curl to download the remote script to a local file first, and provide the opportunity to inspect it prior to piping it into bash
        Avamander 7y ago
        > Off the top of my head, this could be mitigated in a couple of ways: Or the third opportunity of not piping curl to bash and using a proper repository that has all these integrity and authenticity checks built-in.

yori 7y ago

What difference does it make if you run `make install` or `curl | bash`? In both cases, you are running code you have not audited yourself. Or are you the kind who inspects every Makefile and installer script before installing? If not, why is one better than the other?

sudosysgen 7y ago
Because at least with make install you can have some trust in the delivery method, ie encrypted git or whatever. If you use just plain http....
- yori 7y ago
  So wget https://example.com/installer.tar.gz; https://example.com/installer.tar.gz; tar -xvzf installer.tar.gz; cd installer; make install is okay for you? But curl https://example.com/installer.sh https://example.com/installer.sh | bash is not? Why?
  - sudosysgen 7y ago
    I'm fine with the second too as long as the host is trustworthy and it's always https. Most of the time it isn't.

GordonS 7y ago

Whether it's `sudo make install` or `curl | bash`, in both cases you have the opportunity to first inspect the code that will be executed.

Avamander 7y ago
You don't have the opportunity in the latter case. https://www.idontplaydarts.com/2016/04/detecting-curl-pipe-bash-server-side/ https://www.idontplaydarts.com/2016/04/detecting-curl-pipe-b...
- GordonS 7y ago
  Sorry, I don't follow. If I have a makefile, I can inspect it and see what it does. If I have shell script (or indeed a makefile!) that calls `curl | bash`, I can inspect that shell script and see the URL that is used with curl, and then inspect the contents that the URL returns.
  - Avamander 7y ago
    You can't see what comes from `curl | bash` before you actually pipe it to bash, click the link and read the article please.
    - GordonS 7y ago
      OK, I see - in theory, an attacker in control of the backend could write a handler that could craft a bash script that writes different content when `curl | bash` is used. TBH, while I take your point, I do think it's a little disingenuous of you to claim that "You don't have the opportunity" to inspect the script prior to executing it - you ordinarily will, but can't in the unlikely event of an attack like the article describes, which would require an attacker to be in full control of the web server. Off the top of my head, this could be mitigated in a couple of ways: 1. Hash a known-good script and check the hash matches prior to executing (this does however mean that you need to update the hash every time the remote script is changed) 2. Use curl to download the remote script to a local file first, and provide the opportunity to inspect it prior to piping it into bash
      - Avamander 7y ago
        > Off the top of my head, this could be mitigated in a couple of ways: Or the third opportunity of not piping curl to bash and using a proper repository that has all these integrity and authenticity checks built-in.