A massive supply chain attack targeting the Arch User Repository (AUR) has compromised more than 400 community-maintained packages, with attackers injecting malicious build scripts designed to deploy credential-stealing malware and rootkit-style payloads on affected Linux systems.
  • RedditRefugee69420@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    23 hours ago

    Tons of clawing at each other’s throats in the comments here, largely declaring one another retarded for their use or misuse of AUR or thanking their lucky stars that none of their packages are on the list (so far), but not much that’s helpful for those less fortunate. Maybe nobody’s saying anything to that end because the article already covered it, but this is the second out of two times I’ve visited cybersecuritynews.com and been stuck in an “Are you a bot?” loop that never ends no matter how much of my browser’s safeguards I peel off.

    Here’s what steps I did so far, based on following the links I found in this thread (especially the GitHub comments under one of the links):

    1. pacman -Qm in console yielded a list of all the AUR packages that are installed on the system

    2. CTRL+F the results one-by-one in the apparent most up-to-date list: https://md.archlinux.org/s/SxbqukK6IA

    3. I have one on that list, specifically wine-nine, so I ran bat --style header,snip,changes /var/log/pacman.log | grep wine-nine which yielded the following (at the bottom of a very long list of apparent updates I’ve run since installing the OS):

    [2026-06-05T20:37:06-0400] [ALPM-SCRIPTLET] wine-nine 0.10-1

    [2026-06-07T21:50:58-0400] [ALPM-SCRIPTLET] wine-nine 0.10-1

    [2026-06-08T20:56:54-0400] [ALPM-SCRIPTLET] wine-nine 0.10-1

    [2026-06-09T21:38:44-0400] [ALPM-SCRIPTLET] wine-nine 0.10-1

    [2026-06-10T21:58:52-0400] [ALPM-SCRIPTLET] wine-nine 0.10-1

    [2026-06-12T20:18:37-0400] [ALPM-SCRIPTLET] wine-nine 0.10-1

    [2026-06-12T20:18:37-0400] [ALPM-SCRIPTLET] wine-nine 0.10-1

    (Like a good little Arch user I’ve been updating pretty frequently)

    1. Now what?

    I saw something that said “check for suspicious processes running as root” but I have no idea what that would look like.

    I saw something that said I need to redo all of my passwords and tokens. Any way to check if that’s necessary or should I just assume I’ve been pwn3d?

    In using pacseek I think I’ve discovered wine-nine hasn’t been modified in the AUR since “2024-12-07 - 15:18:31 (UTC)” so can I relax a bit? I’m currently going through my list of AUR packages and deciding whether or not I need them as badly as I originally thought. Sadly my distro is one of those that decided to lean on AUR, because most of my list (apart from two) I don’t recognize as something I’ve installed myself.

    pacseek would not let me remove the following AUR packages (which thankfully are not in the list (yet)):

    :: removing electron41-bin breaks dependency 'electron41' required by deltachat-desktop - an encrypted chat application I installed (not via AUR) I suppose I could find an alternative for

    :: removing electron41-bin breaks dependency 'electron41' required by freetube - a YouTube frontend I installed (not via AUR) I suppose I could find an alternative for

    :: removing libsoup breaks dependency 'libsoup' required by webkit2gtk - no idea what webkit2gtk is

    I only just now realized that chaotic-aur is probably just as problematic as AUR, both in my decision to use packages at all as well as my searching the list of compromise packages, yes? I have tons more packages under that, most of which I think came with the OS.

  • Cease@mander.xyzEnglish
    23·
    2 days ago

    I think a lot of people are confusing what the AUR actually IS. It is NOT the official package repository used by Archlinux - it’s more like a bunch of community install scripts for stuff that isn’t officially supported yet - for popularity or other reasons.

    So for all those people complaining and saying “debian does it better” it’s very likely that you would not even HAVE a package to install and would have to come up with a build script on your own - the AUR allows you to skip this and instead just verify that the script itself isn’t malicious, which is usually fairly obvious.

    A lot of people here seem to be under the impression that all of this effort should be abstracted for them - but that’s what you chose when you left windows - a system that you control intimately with a necessitation to actually do some upkeep yourself because a giant company isn’t doing it for you.

    In other words. RTFM and stop expecting other people fix all your problems for you, because that’s exactly how windows got to how it currently is.

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.netEnglish
      7·
      2 days ago

      it’s more like a bunch of community install scripts for stuff that isn’t officially supported yet - for popularity or other reasons.

      I’m looking at the list of affected packages and many of them are in official debian repos. Isn’t the issue then that the official Arch repositories don’t have many packages and people have to use less secure sources? That still sounds like an Arch issue to me.

      • flying_sheep@lemmy.mlEnglish
        7·
        2 days ago

        Arch actually has a large amount of official packages. Maybe some of the packages you’re referring to are just slightly renamed or alternate versions?

        It’s possible that in some areas it has fewer packages of course (e.g. Debian might repackage a larger subset of PyPI as Python packages), but I need the AUR for very few things.

      • Billegh@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        Just because there is an official package doesn’t mean someone can’t make an aur one with the same name, or with common misspelling.

      • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        Isn’t the issue then that the official Arch repositories don’t have many packages …?

        Not at all. The official Arch distribution has tens of thousands of packages and the user repository / AUR probably more than 100,000 .

        Edit: I looked it up:

        • According to distrowatch.com, the Arch Linux distribution has over 17,000 packges by now
        • Meanwhile, the number of packages in the Arch User Repository is 114,000 .
    • Jjakef96@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      I haven’t been on my PC that much this week, just Friday night. And our D&D group uses Discord so I needed to make sure it was up to date to ensure it would run. I typically just do a, “sudo pacman -Syu” and that seems to update what I need.

      If that is the only thing I did with the PC during this window, is there any concern?

      • flop_leash_973@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        Probably not. The article says that most of it seems to have come from orphaned stuff in the AUR that the threat actors took ownership of via the legit process, then modified to pull down malicious NPM packages when someone went to install them.

        So if your Discord package is well maintained you probably have nothing to worry about.

    • proleEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      A lot of people here seem to be under the impression that all of this effort should be abstracted for them

      Wouldn’t this just make it harder to detect?

  • KassioAug@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    9·
    2 days ago

    I was starting to get too confident in AUR. Thankfully I wasn’t affected. Just replaced all possible AUR packages to their respective Arch and Flatpak alternatives, with exception of very few or from the ones I had no option. But will definitely check before updating them, and will only install AUR packages as a last resort.

    • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      Have a look into the Guix package manager. It works fine on top of Arch, and Guix has 31,000 packages now. Great for cross-language development and also suitable for early sharing of projects. npm support is a bit weak though, but packages written in Python, Rust, or functional languages are well represented.

      • Jason2357@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        22 hours ago

        Thats like nix packager, right? Looks interesting to layer on top. Says they are all reproducible builds which is nice.

        • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgEnglish
          3·
          10 hours ago

          Yes, Guix is initially a clone of Nix and has still remains of shared code (the build daemon).

          Differences:

          • Guix packages are defined in a Scheme dialect called Guile, a nice minimal functional language
          • Guix was created as a GNU project and stresses the importance of free software with strong copyleft
          • strong focus on long-term reproducibility and capability of tracking the sources
          • everything is built from source
          • very good and well organized documentation
  • misterrabbit@lemmy.worldEnglish
    42·
    3 days ago

    Been saying for years that people need to stop treating the AUR like a repo, when it’s more akin to curl installscript.sh | bash.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      8·
      2 days ago

      But it is a repo. It’s just an unofficial one. I don’t know how you use it without understanding this. It’s not far from perfect, but it is useful.

      • gergo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        2 days ago

        the problem is exactly the fact that it is a repo; it introduces a layer of unknown between the dev and the user. and the user will unavoidably “trust” it (especially when it’s listed amongst official repos in e.g. the graphical version of Pamac), without understanding the risks.

  • Tetsuo@jlai.luEnglish
    89·
    3 days ago

    I hope all the Arch based distros will do a proper post to inform their users on how to cleanup afterwards.

    I’m hoping at least cachyos, the distro I use, will tell me exactly how to check and clean my system.

    I remember that when I installed a few of my AUR package, I was well aware that this repo was pretty much unregulated and that I just have to trust it’s safe. So I made sure to only use AUR as a last resort. But there was warnings on cachyos that were displayed to tell me to be cautious about it so that’s at least a positive.

    • yesman@lemmy.worldEnglish
      83·
      3 days ago

      The article has instructions to do exactly that.

      Users who regularly install AUR packages should take the following steps immediately:

      Run pacman -Qm to list all foreign (AUR) packages installed on your system and cross-reference against the published list of compromised packages

      Audit recent PKGBUILD history for any packages installed between June 10–12, 2026

      Rotate all credentials — browser passwords, SSH keys, API tokens, and cloud access keys — if any flagged package was installed

      Scan for suspicious processes masquerading as kernel threads using tools like rkhunter or chkrootkit

      Consider using AUR helpers with PKGBUILD review prompts enabled by default.

      The Checklist of infected packages

      • Tetsuo@jlai.luEnglish
        29·
        2 days ago

        Ok, but I was expecting something a bit more automated then opening a list of package in kate and comparing it to my list of installed AUR package… Plus it’s 400 package so that’s a lot of things to check and plenty of space to miss one package by manually checking.

        But I get it I’m lazy and just need to script something myself. This is affecting so many people I thought we would have a script to check quickly if you are “infected”.

        Edit : thanks for the numerous script sent as reply ! But I’m all set now, thanks !

        • flying_sheep@lemmy.mlEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          Arch usually doesn’t re-package Python packages that aren’t needed for something else, meaning they end up in the AUR. I maintain several there, and when I stop using them I abandon them. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the ones I used to maintain are on the list

        • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
          7·
          3 days ago

          Yeah, Python has been a massive vulnerability for a long while. And the AUR has similar issues. This is only getting widespread coverage now. But it’s always been a risk.

          • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            Yes, we need a kind of Debian for Python.

            Part of the solution could be the Guix package manager. Part could be the commercial offerings, like Anaconda.

        • CaptDust@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          3·
          3 days ago

          Well, those are mostly extension libraries, stuff “normally” installed using pip. Arch is kind of unique that they encourage using system aur over pip, npm and other package managers. While it is a big radius, none of the python packages stick out to me, but maybe I just haven’t encountered the popular ones.

          • iocase@lemmy.zipEnglish
            5·
            3 days ago

            The attackers specifically targeted orphaned projects on AUR so it’s no wonder most of those aren’t familiar to us.

          • esc@piefed.socialEnglish
            3·
            3 days ago

            It isn’t really all that unique? Debian does it, el does it, probably almost any popular distro?

  • Kazel@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    6·
    2 days ago

    Look how every motherfucker complains about arch and the aur but not that their distros blindly use it without contributing back and even suggest to blindly trust it. these same people now complain the aur is to complicated. Never go full retard guys

  • xthexder@l.sw0.comEnglish
    7·
    2 days ago

    Not even having npm installed as a system package feels like a personal win right now. I’d like to think I would have caught this due to the number of dependencies it would introduce to my system. node_modules seems like it’s been the source of most of the recent CVEs I’m hearing about.

  • lazylemons@lemmy.todayEnglish
    21·
    3 days ago

    I have always been nervous about this type of thing happening with the AUR. Thankfully many packages I used to need the AUR for have since added native versions or made flatpaks. I hope AUR users don’t have too many issues from this!

  • xploit@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8·
    3 days ago

    Welp if nothing else at least this has helped me to replace jack1 with jack2 (out of my 4 total Aur packages)

  • niva@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    2·
    2 days ago

    Wow, I have 229 AUR packages installed but none of them is on the infected list!

    Am I just lucky?

    • niva@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      1·
      4 hours ago

      I just checked the new list with 1937 infected packages, not a single match. Again, am I just lucky or are all these 1937 packages barely used by people?

    • proleEnglish
      9·
      2 days ago

      I have 229 AUR packages installed

      Holy shit lol…

      • onnekas@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        How do you guys check against that list? Especially when people have so many aur packages. I simply searched the list for each package manually but I only have 5. Do you write scripts?

        • flying_sheep@lemmy.mlEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          So far I’ve just checked the diff of every package update. But with that many, I think we should maybe start using using the script provided in the article that you evidently didn’t read.

          • onnekas@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            I read another article before which did not mention the script but only listed all affected packages. So yeah I should read this article :)

    • texture@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      i have a few machines and lots of aur packages and none of mine have a single hit either

      • niva@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        1·
        4 hours ago

        Same here. Just checked against the new list with 1937 packages and still don’t have a match.

  • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zipEnglish
    4·
    3 days ago

    Ha! Infosec has been telling us to update out software frequently because it’s safer. My strategy of bone-idleness and updating only once a monþ or two is looking pr-etty smart.

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      That’s not how that works.

      • when you use distribution-provided packages, you trust the distribution maintainers
      • when you use the AUR you trust the upstream project and check the PKGBUILD because the maintainer can change

      In some cases, upstream also maintains the AUR package, in which case you can probably trust that it’ll not be abandoned