You are not logged in.
Considering the recent aur attacks with malware is it safe to install these packages:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/google-chrome
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/librewolf-bin
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/microsoft-edge-stable-bin
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ulauncher
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/yacreader-binOffline
Let's say a random person on the forum tells you they're safe to install, would you install them?
Offline
Considering the recent aur attacks with malware is it safe to install these packages:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/google-chrome https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/librewolf-bin https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/microsoft-edge-stable-bin https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ulauncher https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/yacreader-bin
The whole problem with the AUR is users not doing their due diligence, you need to check. If you have checked please post the details and findings.
Rlu: 222126
Offline
Let's say a random person on the forum tells you they're safe to install, would you install them?
No. And no one should
Edit:
Unless the person cares to explain each part of the PKGBUILD, and justify WHY it is safe upon being asked about it
Last edited by 5hridhyan (2026-06-17 12:03:10)
Offline
google-chrome is maintained by me, so I can say for sure that it's safe ![]()
Offline
Ah yeah, gromit is the exception to my point! Though technically... even if an official PM/Developer maintains it, we should still check the PKGBUILD to make sure "the" account wasn't hijacked by a malicious actor while you slept ![]()
Edit:
I mean in most cases 'Trust, but verify' doesn't apply when the person writing the code is the one keeping the lights on around here, If I imagine "PMs/Devs" account getting compromised, it wouldn't be limited to the AUR [/terrified]
Last edited by 5hridhyan (2026-06-17 12:31:16)
Offline
google-chrome is maintained by me, so I can say for sure that it's safe
Haha, what a perfect response. :-)
Rlu: 222126
Offline
Or an evil maid attack, you can't trust anyone. ![]()
Offline
So, should i look first for flatpak and snap software and use aur packages as a last resort?
Offline
flatpak, snap, appimage have their own problems and security risks.
Who do you put your trust in ?
My custom local repo has almost 50 aur packages , 20 of which I maintain/co-maintain .
I trust the authors of the 30 other aur packages but still check the changes they make to the packages.
I stay away from flatpak & snap, sometimes use appimages IF they are published by the creators of the software.
Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.
clean chroot building not flexible enough ?
Try clean chroot manager by graysky
Offline
So, should i look first for flatpak and snap software and use aur packages as a last resort?
I'm unsure about snap but flatpak has the exact same issues as the AUR. It didn't come up because nothing (?) happened yet but in general, flatpak should be treated the same as the AUR.
Offline
Yes, but some flatpak and snap software is released by the developers.
Offline
As are AUR packages case in point from your list, the AUR packages of yacreader (the non-bin one!) and ulauncher are released by their respective authors.
That said the simple answer to this particular set of packages, they are longstanding and have had stable maintainers for a while now they will not have been able to be targeted by the recent attack, so will most likely be safe (and are from a quick glance). But what everyone here tries to drive home is the fact that ultimately you need to check what their PKGBUILDs are doing and asses whether the operations within them are safe (and not blindly trust any of us, even if many here have a long standing and likely don't want to fuck you over, it's ultimately your decision and your pegorative, flatpak or snap cannot save you from this, both can and do have packages by third parties and their respective sandboxing features are optional unless you configure them to enforce certain constraints (or trust the authors to not fuck you over -- same as the AUR)
Don't trust me, go to the AUR links, check whether the upstream sources are what they claim to be, verify who is packaging them decide whether you trust that upstream and then install the package.
Last edited by V1del (2026-06-17 15:38:08)
Offline
Safe how?
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/google-chrome
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/microsoft-edge-stable-bin
google-chrome is maintained by me, so I can say for sure that it's safe
idk, you look kinda shady to me ![]()
@niko787
The gist here is that you cannot just shift the trust problem from one anonymous source to another.
I'll walk you a bit through https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/ … rewolf-bin
* The first 15 lines are (as of today!) clerical - do you see anything remotely suspicious there?
* Then there're the dependency arrays, all from the repos and nothing obscure like npm or python-pip that would act as sideloading packagemanager. Anything that worries you?
* Line #59 has a pgp key that you can research.
gpg --search-keys 662E3CDD6FE329002D0CA5BB40339DD82B12EF16* Line #63 is
install='librewolf-bin.install' which is a bit of a uh-oh, so we better check that file! https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/ … rewolf-bin
* Pfeewww - it only prints some reminder to stdout.
* Next are the sources, does https://codeberg.org/librewolf/ look legit? How can you figure that?
* Finally the package() function.
- Does anything there look concerning? Does it get other files from the internet? What is that weird "install -Dvm644 /dev/stdin "$distini" <<END" ???
- Then it seems to copy some icons.
- Another of these weird <<END things, gee - I should really figure what this pattern does. Maybe google or an AI or somebody on some forum knows that.
- Then it symlinks some binaries. Is this shady? Luckily it's also documented w/ a link to a bugtracker.
So: did anything there pose a major red flag?
Or even a minor one?
Do you have open questions about what anything in that PKGBUILD does?
Offline
niko787 wrote:So, should i look first for flatpak and snap software and use aur packages as a last resort?
I'm unsure about snap but flatpak has the exact same issues as the AUR. It didn't come up because nothing (?) happened yet but in general, flatpak should be treated the same as the AUR.
https://blog.popey.com/2026/01/malware- … l-domains/
I Have Linux Perl Can i Download Gnome???
Offline
I wanted to add something so obvious that no one has mentioned it yet: for users not ready (or not willing) to check PKGBUILDs for the AUR, they might consider just looking at alternatives in the official repos instead. There's a lot there, and some users just may not realise there are other apps out there that could work for them.
For example, some of the packages mentioned by the OP:
* google-chrome -> chromium is in the official repos (for new users who may be unaware, that's the open source part of Chrome, without the Google stuff).
* librewolf-bin -> firefox is in the official repos (LibreWolf derives from Firefox).
* yacreader-bin -> a comic book reader I believe... foliate is in the official repos and at least one site says it reads comic books (not my thing, just doing a quick check), there may be others.
I don't mean to question why people prefer one app over another, absolutely make your choices, and I understand why you might want Chrome over Chromium or LibreWolf over Firefox. Just that if you're taking a risk in doing so (by not reading PKGBUILDs), you could consider compromising on functionality instead of security. You might even stumble upon on a new favourite app for your needs.
Offline