undefined | Better HN

0 pointssamatman1y ago0 comments

Is it really so bad to run it twice, with cat/bat replaced with sh on the second pass? If you're really paranoid about it you could save the first run to a file, so you know for certain that the server didn't do a switcheroo for the second one, but if you think about it, that's a low-payout move for Bad Guy #N compared to just sending the pwnage the first time around.

This is beside the fact that we're talking about downloading and running a user-owned binary, which, unlike the shell script, is impractical to inspect in any detail, and has the same privileges as the shell script we're supposed to worry about.

I view "don't curl to shell" as about 90% theatrics basically. Sure, read it first, I do in fact do that. But it's a silly 'very hard rule'.

0 comments

jerf1y ago

I routinely save to a file before execution, but it's not really about being attacked. It's about the fact that those scripts, in order to be "fire and forget", make many assumptions, often very large ones, about where I want things or under what user, etc.

Many of them are actually quite well-written under the hood and can be easily moved to other directories, have comments about what it is doing, etc.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointssamatman1y ago0 comments

I view "don't curl to shell" as about 90% theatrics basically. Sure, read it first, I do in fact do that. But it's a silly 'very hard rule'.

0 comments

jerf1y ago

Many of them are actually quite well-written under the hood and can be easily moved to other directories, have comments about what it is doing, etc.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse