- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
A Bitcoin investor was recently scammed out of 9 Bitcoin (worth around $490K) in a fake “Exodus wallet” desktop application for Linux, published in the Canonical Snap Store. This isn’t the first time; if nothing changes, it likely won’t be the last.
It is on the FlatHub as well.
That’s is the genuine one. There is a genuine company called Exodus for Crypto. The problem is that a scammer made their own clone and nobody verified whether they really are from the Exodus company.
If you check the manifest on Flathub you’ll see they verified it belongs to the real Exodus
Yes. You are right. Thanks. Just listened to the Linux Matters podcast episode about this. Crazy.
That one apparently is legit: https://floss.social/@sonny/111966204515001155
42,396 installs… Holy shit.
Edit, from the article:
Any chance that the FlatHub one is legit?
Apparently the Flathub one is indeed legit
I mean FlatHub isn’t safe in general. You could just target someone downloading the package and give them a malicious package instead. FlatHub doesn’t check sigs, so its a hot mess
They seem to be doing more on that side than Canonical is. But I agree, it should be MANDATORY that the developer is thoroughly vetted and approved and the code run and checked before publishing.
I hope this is a wake up call for Snaps and Flatpaks.
Apps from the repo have the security, which is why I always default to the distribution repo
Brexit?
Damn autocorrect…
Its not terrible but its certainly not great either
Its pretty terrible compared to normal OS package managers.
How so? I just open up gnome software an search for the application I need
Cryptographic verification of the packages authenticity
The repo is gpg signed. I don’t know why you think thats not sufficient.
“packages” don’t exist like traditional distros. Its a large repo of data.
Point me to the documentation that describes this
https://ostreedev.github.io/ostree/man/ostree.html - GPG verification section
This isn’t even the right project’s documentation
… I assumed you knew the basics.
Flatpak uses ostree for all data. https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/under-the-hood.html
I’m disappointed you criticize the project so harshly with no knowledge of it.
No, my point is that if flat pak doesn’t document that they cryptographically verify the authenticity of packages, then they dont.
Even the ostree docs say that it supports it gpg encryption. It supports it. It doesn’t enforce it. That depends on the implementation.
I will continue to harshly criticize projects that leave users vulnerable. Want to prove me wrong? Link me to the flat pak docks that clearly say that all packages are cryptographically verified after download and before upload.
Look, Flatpak does, and it’s secure. You can spread misinformation if you like but don’t be proud of it.
You clearly have no capacity to accept new information in good faith.
It’s produced without upstream involvement but does seem to be legit so far. I placed a post seeking clarification about the Flatpak situation on Reddit 6 months ago. I quickly got a response after posting it. However, the response was from some scammers and I never got a response from the company behind it itself.
deleted by creator