Yes, exactly this! I am not surprised it happens. I’m surprised it didn’t happen before.
especially new accounts
Weren’t there “sleeper accounts” registered years ago that became active in the current wave?
Also the AUR helpers should do a better job.
Even experienced people will just update as if nothing could happen. Adopted packages should have to use a different name and the current name being blocked so it WILL get attention when some tries to update their system.
Weren’t there “sleeper accounts” registered years ago that became active in the current wave?
Which does not invalidate my point about new accounts, but yes. Its important for new accounts, so once a sleeper account is banned, its not that easy to just create thousands of new accounts while everyone is focusing on the current active ones. And if, as I suggested, mass adoption per account is not possible, then the attacker has less to attack.
Edit: They need to make sure that sudden editing many packages in short time, with probably the same or similar lines should be automatically reported. They need some automated checks in place, at the very least. This would be a very suspicious behavior if many accounts are not active, and then suddenly all of them do something.
Even experienced people will just update as if nothing could happen.
Then you can’t fault the system, if you are this reckless.
Adopted packages should have to use a different name and the current name being blocked so it WILL get attention when some tries to update their system.
This would break all dependencies of this package. The point of adoption is to keep it working and stable. I’m highly against force changing the name, that is not a solution (at least not one I am happy about).
[Changing a package’s name] would break all dependencies of this package.
Yes, that is correct. But that should not be a big deal for packages that are actively maintained. The maintainer can simply change the dependency to the new name after making sure the new package is legit.
OK, that’s a good point. It would prevent auto updating. However any package that is NOT updated, should stay with same name in my opinion. So that everything (with the old secure code) stays intact and working. The name change should be part of the the update process. So it only breaks if you want to update, which would ensure compatibility if you choose not to (as it is safe). Something along the likes like this. I agree with your suggestion now, because that seems to be sensible idea.
Yes, exactly this! I am not surprised it happens. I’m surprised it didn’t happen before.
Weren’t there “sleeper accounts” registered years ago that became active in the current wave?
Even experienced people will just update as if nothing could happen. Adopted packages should have to use a different name and the current name being blocked so it WILL get attention when some tries to update their system.
Which does not invalidate my point about new accounts, but yes. Its important for new accounts, so once a sleeper account is banned, its not that easy to just create thousands of new accounts while everyone is focusing on the current active ones. And if, as I suggested, mass adoption per account is not possible, then the attacker has less to attack.
Edit: They need to make sure that sudden editing many packages in short time, with probably the same or similar lines should be automatically reported. They need some automated checks in place, at the very least. This would be a very suspicious behavior if many accounts are not active, and then suddenly all of them do something.
Then you can’t fault the system, if you are this reckless.
This would break all dependencies of this package. The point of adoption is to keep it working and stable. I’m highly against force changing the name, that is not a solution (at least not one I am happy about).
Yes, that is correct. But that should not be a big deal for packages that are actively maintained. The maintainer can simply change the dependency to the new name after making sure the new package is legit.
OK, that’s a good point. It would prevent auto updating. However any package that is NOT updated, should stay with same name in my opinion. So that everything (with the old secure code) stays intact and working. The name change should be part of the the update process. So it only breaks if you want to update, which would ensure compatibility if you choose not to (as it is safe). Something along the likes like this. I agree with your suggestion now, because that seems to be sensible idea.