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?

      • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 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.

    • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 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.

      • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 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.

    • easily3667@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 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”

      • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 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.