Yes, but I am also saying that you can't verify that the script that is run on one machine with a pipe is the same script that runs on a second machine with a pipe.

The key part of the original statement is the server can choose to send different scripts based on different factors. A curl&bash script on machine 1 does not necessarily mean the same curl&bash script will be run on machine 2.

The tooling provided by a `curl | bash` pipeline provides no security at all.

With winget, there is at least tooling to be able to see that the same file (with the same hash) will be downloaded and installed.

There are ways to do this better, for example, check out https://hashbang.sh. It includes a GPG signature that is verified against the install script, before it is passed to curl.

It's not hard to run the `show` command to see what a winget install will do. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/package-manager/wi...

It's easy enough to view the manifests (eg, https://github.com/microsoft/winget-pkgs/blob/2ecf2187ea0bf1...) and arguably, is better then the protection for MITM that you would get using naked cURL & Bash, simply because there are file hashes for all of the installer files provided by a third party.

> They are saying curl is strictly better, not that it is impenetrable

Right. But it arguably is not strictly better.

> You can't trust winget

Again, this is not backed up by anything. I have trust in winget. I can trust that the manifest has at least been vetted by a human, and that the application that will be installed should be the one that I requested. I can not trust that this will happen with curl | bash. If the application that is installed is not the one that I requested, there is tooling a process to sort out why that did not happen, and a way to flag it so that it doesn't happen to other users. I don't have this with curl | bash.