curl https://some-url | sh

I see this all over the place nowadays, even in communities that, I would think, should be security conscious. How is that safe? What’s stopping the downloaded script from wiping my home directory? If you use this, how can you feel comfortable?

I understand that we have the same problems with the installed application, even if it was downloaded and installed manually. But I feel the bar for making a mistake in a shell script is much lower than in whatever language the main application is written. Don’t we have something better than “sh” for this? Something with less power to do harm?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      So tell me: if I download and run a bash script over https, or a .deb file over https and then install it, why is the former a “security nightmare” and the latter not?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        216 hours ago

        Both are a security nightmare, if you’re not verifying the signature.

        You should verify the signature of all things you download before running it. Be it a bash script or a .deb file or a .AppImage or to-be-compiled sourcecode.

        Best thing is to just use your Repo’s package manager. Apt will not run anything that isn’t properly signed by a package team members release PGP key.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 hours ago

          I have to assume that we’re in this situation because because the app does not exist in our distro’s repo (or homebrew or whatever else). So how do you go about this verification? You need a trusted public key, right? You wouldn’t happen to be downloading that from the same website that you’re worried might be sending you compromised scripts or binaries? You wouldn’t happen to be downloading the key from a public keyserver and assuming it belongs to the person whose name is on it?

          This is such a ridiculously high bar to avert a “security nightmare”. Regular users will be better off ignoring such esoteric suggestions and just looking for lots of stars on GitHub.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        217 hours ago

        For example: A compromised host could detect whether you are downloading the script or piping it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          110 hours ago

          Hilarious, but not a security issue. Just shitty Bash coding.

          And I agree it’s easier to make these mistakes in Bash, but I don’t think anyone here is really making the argument that curl | bash is bad because Bash is a shitty error-prone language (it is).

          Definitely the most valid point I’ve read in this thread though. I wish we had a viable alternative. Maybe the Linux community could work on that instead of moaning about it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13 hours ago

            Hilarious, but not a security issue. Just shitty Bash coding.

            It absolutely is a security issue. I had a little brain fart, but what I meant to say was “Security isn’t just protection from malice, but also protection from mistakes”.

            Let’s put it differently:

            Hilarious, but not a security issue. Just shitty C coding.

            This is a common sentiment people say about C, and I have a the same opinion about it. I would rather we use systems in place that don’t give people the opportunity to make mistakes.

            I wish we had a viable alternative. Maybe the Linux community could work on that instead of moaning about it.

            Viable alternative for what? Packaging.

            I personally quite like the systems we have. The “install anything from the internet” is exactly how Windows ends up with so much malware. The best way to package software for users is via a package manager, that not only puts more eyes on the software, but many package managers also have built in functionality that makes the process more reliable and secure. For example signatures create a chain of trust. I really like Nix as a distro-agnostic package manager, because due to the unique way they do things, it’s impossible for one package’s build process to interfere with another.

            If you want to do “install anything from the internet” it’s best to do it with containers and sandboxing. Docker/podman for services, and Flatpak for desktop apps, where it’s pretty easy to publish to flathub. Both also seem to be pretty easy, and pretty popular — I commonly find niche things I look at ship a docker image.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              119 minutes ago

              This is a common sentiment people say about C, and I have a the same opinion about it. I would rather we use systems in place that don’t give people the opportunity to make mistakes.

              The issue with C is it lets you make mistakes that commonly lead to security vulnerabilities - allowing a malicious third party to do bad stuff.

              The Bash examples you linked are not security vulnerabilities. They don’t let malicious third parties do anything. They done have CVEs, they’re just straight up data loss bugs. Bad ones, sure. (And I fully support not using Bash where feasible.)

              Viable alternative for what? Packaging.

              A viable way to install something that works on all Linux distros (and Mac!), and doesn’t require root.

              The reason people use curl | bash is precisely so they don’t have to faff around making a gazillion packages. That’s not a good answer.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        You’re telling me that you dont verify the signatures of the binaries you download before running them too?!? God help you.

        I download my binaries with apt, which will refuse to install the binary if the signature doesn’t match.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          110 hours ago

          No because there’s very little point. Checking signatures only makes sense if the signatures are distributed in a more secure channel than the actual software. Basically the only time that happens is when software is distributed via untrusted mirror services.

          Most software I install via curl | bash is first-party hosted and signatures don’t add any security.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            15 hours ago

            All publishing infrastructure shouldn’t be trusted. Theres countless historical examples of this.

            Use crypto. It works.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              116 minutes ago

              Crypto is used. It is called TLS.

              You have to have some trust of publishing infrastructure, otherwise how do you know your signatures are correct?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        By definition nothing

        The point you appear to be making is “everything is insecure so nothing is” and the point others are making is “everything is insecure so everything is”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          110 hours ago

          No, the point I am making is there are no additional security implications from executing a Bash script that someone sends you over executing a binary that they send you. I don’t know how to make that clearer.