Hot take: If we added a "--install" option to #curl, we could optimize many a "| sh -" pipeline away.
Finally a truly universal installer.
Hot take: If we added a "--install" option to #curl, we could optimize many a "| sh -" pipeline away.
Finally a truly universal installer.
I am uncertain if that's the patch I want to be known for though.
But I have set a reminder for in 32 days.
@larsmb honestly this could be an improvement to security. for example, it could:
1. require HTTPS
2. guard against truncation attacks
3. check against a malicious blacklist
which simply piping the output can't do
@pianosaurus @larsmb @agowa338
I think RFC 3514 "The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header" have place here.
@larsmb Bonus, it would stop people getting confused from typing `sudo curl $URL | sh -` instead of `curl $URL | sudo sh -`
...nope, still nope! 😆
Not sure how "| sh" is any less secure than what people do 99.9% of the time anyway, which is download an installer or executable and not bother or validate it.
If you really want to change the world, work out an actually secure mechanism (tall order!) and have --install implement it. Not sure what that would look like: https requirement, maybe a database of known/vetted installations, a means to report issues. Very tall order.
Sadly I think I trust Badger and friends to get it right more than my package manager.
CUPS. Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time...
@goetz No, the true systemd way would be to replace it with systemd-urld, a DBus service that is configured via plenty of .unit/.service files and a systemd-url-ctl CLI
But it can also no longer download to the same locations you used to use, since those are now immutable.
Oh, and a SELinux policy, with a different context for every domain.
@goetz @larsmb @bagder hmm.. The aim here is surely to make installation of programs easier. Logically therefore what is required is to provide access to the largest marketplace of programs - which is Windows.
Therefore Curl should have an integrated PE executable decoder, and all of WINE included in it.
@stevenodb @bagder I'm not actually sure that's entirely true.
Package managers _also_ run "scripts from the Internet". And the next step they do is run the program that was just so installed. So if you don't trust the dev, you're still screwed.
Yes, there are many issues, and people surely shouldn't point it at random URLs either, but for a legitimate upstream project? I'm not sure the "security implications" are all that real.
(Sorry, my original post was snark, this reply isn't :-)