Because this is not targetted to humans. It's targetted to agents. They just need to appear on a fraction of the searches agents do to add dependencies and get lucky a couple times to start a new infection cluster.
Then to the more interesting question: why now?
1. Agents, agents everywhere.
2. MAJOR elections happening this year in the World, including US midterms and Brazilian mains. This appears to be an account-stealer worm - and my guess is it's looking to all those sweet sweet Facebook/Instagram/Tiktok/Whatsapp accounts ready to bot their way into oblivion.
One could research where those repos are coming from, and do forensics on who controls the trojan network. But that wasn't done, so right now, it's all speculation. Something can be very worrying without us knowing exactly what the use cases for it will be
… you also have to remember that the JTRIG leaked docs were about a decade before LLMs, so you could imagine tooling these days is 100x a they used to have
Governments just run sim farms etc. they dont need to use this kind of approach for political influece. Not to say that some dont but generally they will not be stealing accounts. (most bots involved in campaigns to get trump in his seat were not stolen accounts)
I suppose the only difference to the Big 4 is the price tag.
I guess politicians could claim to be hiring a voter research company and profess to be oblivious to the "voter hacking" schemes (hacking the voters' minds to lean whichever way the politician wants them to lean).
I will agree with a sibling up there that the political part is pure speculation, and I’d guess anyone running a moderately sized botnet is open to use for any nefarious purposes if the price is right.
Like what, parties campaigning?
Legitimate projects:
https://github.com/jimmc414/onefilellm
https://github.com/jimmc414/Kosmos
https://github.com/jimmc414/cctrace
Projects using my name which I have no affiliation with or they are projects I have written that they have injected new URLs into:
https://hub.decision.ai/skills/jimmc414/benchling-integratio...
https://lobehub.com/skills/jimmc414-claude-code-plugin-marke...
https://mcpmarket.com/tools/skills/geniml-genomic-machine-le...
https://mcpmarket.com/tools/skills/biopython-for-molecular-b...
How do you find these? I don't want to search for my name on those dodgy sites, as that tells them my projects exist.
May be to make it appear on the top of the "Last Updated" repositories in case someone searches for the repo or a keyword. So instead of the author's actual repo, the users endup cloning the trojan infected one.
Virustotal link: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/fdb6cff68a2a8c08779d64a7...
> He had no idea why the hackers had targeted him or what their plan was, whether they would drain his family’s finances or stalk his home. Eventually, after running another anti-virus program, he found a piece of malware hidden in a plug-in he had downloaded from GitHub, the open-source coding site, one day in February when he was messing around with an AI image generator. He had checked the code himself, it had looked legitimate, and others had reviewed it positively. But it seems it contained a Trojan-horse virus that gave the hackers free rein of his PC. Once inside, they just had to wait for Van Andel to log in to 1Password. From there, they were able to steal all his credentials, plus many of his multifactor-authentication codes, so every time Van Andel logged in to an app, a website, or an account, they could follow behind him. They’d had access for months.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/tech/cybersecurity/disney-employee-ai-to...
Agreed, but I think using the same device to access your password manager and for dev is asking for trouble in the first place.
Password managers assumes a non-compromised device. I don't think there exist a password manager that is explicitly designed for a compromised/hostile device.
A password manager + built-in TOTP on a dedicated device is fine for most general usage. Important TOTPs can go to Yubikeys.
That seems somewhat unrealistic? There are many passwords you need to use as part of dev work.
I suppose that becomes a pretty strong argument for passphrases + MFA, because passphrases are much easier to type in manually. But the problem there is lots of services still have stupid/arbitrary maximum password length restrictions that make it difficult or impossible to use a sufficiently complex passphrase.
It’s very frustrating.
1PW just generated this for me: mimp-rort-jan-mon-kain-sqin
Not as much entropy as 24 random letters/digit/punctuations/capitalisation. But (for me at least) much easier to read end type in situations where copy/paste isn't available (like from my phone to my dev docker containers)
Maybe a good compromise is to use 1pw for most TOTP but keep your gmail / iCloud and a few others in an iPhone only app?
Gmail is what scares me the most. It’s basically keys to the kingdom.
We might all do well to remind F&F to print out account recovery codes, and then put some thought into where they'll be safe.
UPDATE: also gotta keep track separatelt of non-resident passkeys tied to Yubikey, because Yubikey doesn't know where it was used for non-resident. If you lose one yubikey, need to sync all passkeys to a new replacement one.
Though I think there is also the option that sites can store some sort of identifier on the key, then this would not work:/
The crypto people tried this with hardware only password managers but they were too annoying. I have a halfway solution of using pass with Yubikey/GPG where each password decryption requires a touch. It does protect against the entire vault being decrypted at once and exfiltrated.
And besides that, ultimately if the computer you're using been compromised, whatever you do on that computer can be mucked about with, so while the password sits safely on the hardware, once you're logged in in the browser, the cookie is just sitting there. I guess you'd get furthest isolation with Qubes et al, but with a regular Linux installation you'd still be exposed with a hardware password manager, if the installation been compromised.
Almost all development I do, and most others, are on our projects or projects we're at least interested in, and most likely dove into, that's why we're developing in them in the first place.
In this case, it seems like the developer wasn't actually developing anything, but playing around with image generation on his time off, for fun, and ended up pulling down a random 3rd party thing and got compromised that way. Very different from "for dev" I'd say.
Besides, didn't most developer start isolating projects from each other when the first npm worms started to appear? I know I stopped running `npm install` in the same environment I do my banking, and drastically reduced the amount of random 3rd party stuff I have, still use all the same device though. Even have a Windows install on the same computer, booo!
Once you have a Yubikey (preferably two, so you have a backup if you damage/lose one) - you may as well make _that_ your primary MFA method, and only use TOTP for services you can't enrol your Yubikeys on.
So just waiting for the password won’t be enough
Does anyone have a description of something manageable?
I suppose the inverse would be starting with a device that offers TOTP/MFA, and then making your password-manager/vault somehow available on that same device. In either case, bringing them together makes it easier for an attacker to compromise both at the same time.
On reflection, I've never actually put my (personal) password vault on my phone, but that may be less of a conscious security stance than fulfilling a millennial stereotype, where certain tasks (like big purchases) are reserved for "a real computer."
Closest I've gotten is having my USB backup keychain in the same pocket, so I could get to it in an emergency, but it's inconveniently air-gapped.
i also force most apps on iOS to ask for face id (long press on app icon to set this).
use intentional spelling mistakes in your password vault, edit the password by hand. you also need to have some way of authenticating login components to be sure your running your version of login, and not a trojan login.
I think the bigger problem is using your pw manager for 2FA too.
Always open to better security, though.
No individual person can be the superhero that saves the day on everyone's behalf. But what we can do is provide what little help or insight that we have, and then pass the issue along to others.
Perhaps all it means is that you end up doing what OP did: the "deeper" research that you mentioned plus a little post on Hacker News or elsewhere.
Even if nothing comes of it in the end, at least you'll have tried.
Years ago, a friend of mine fell victim to a romance scam. Damage ~€3k. It involved fake websites of non-existing logistics companies, a fake banking site where victim could 'help' a person 'transfer funds' for them, a long chat history (over Viber or something like that, initiated through Facebook), etc.
This being a good friend, I put in some legwork, saved local copies of sites, etc. Some findings:
# It's easy to find copies of sites of the one(s) used to defraud victim. In this case, ~50. And compile a list, what's the hoster of each & where domains are registered.
# Fake banking sites are easy to determine since legitimate banks are recorded in per-country registries. Legitimate: website's security certificate (extended validation etc) indicates [bank_X], bank_X listed as such in registry of country it operates in. Not? -> fake.
For non-banking fake sites it's more difficult to tell.
# Hosting companies & domain registrars do take action. As long as you provide correct & detailed info, in such a way that it's easy for them to act on. Professional companies don't like having legal / financial liabilities sit around.
# If there's security certificates involved, informing issuer of that can remove "secure connection" from a whole batch of sites in 1 go. Makes it harder to convince future victims. (no lock icon on a banking site?!?)
# An official request could be filed with this victim's bank (passed on to recipient's bank), that would give holder of recipient account 2 options: a) return the funds, or b) have their personal details revealed to victim - for use in legal proceedings etc.
This was within EU area. Likely, recipient would be a money mule & not respond. But then you'd get money mule's full name/contact info etc (home address?)
# Police / fraud orgs etc rarely have time for this. You need to do the legwork yourself.
Ultimately, my friend decided not to pursue the matter. But in the mean time, I had caused >2/3 of those fake sites to be deleted (and all the fake banking sites I'd found), and some security certificates to be revoked. Obviously that disrupts scammer's operations to some degree (and costs them time, $$, potential victims dropped etc). So it's not like you can't do anything.
The title is "nulled WHMCS" and it's a full copy of that software with copy protection removed. It couldn't be more cut and dried.
The repo is still there 2+ years later and GitHub has taken no action.
If GitHub can't respond to tickets pointing out obvious pirated software, I don't think they care about anything anyone puts up.
I can't wait to discover the next thing to be disappointed by in a decade's time.
Also reminds me to update my fake CV.
Side story, this kind of thing is what made me stop using Bing.
I had been using it as the default for searches (it sucks, but it's at least not Google), until I landed on a phishing page for my bank (I haven't committed it to memory yet). The page was a near perfect copy, and I would easily have gotten pwnd by it if they didn't have a modal asking me to run some code in my terminal for "security activation" that made me go "that's a little odd... Is this the right address OH SHIT that's a .ru domain"
I never see Google return phishing pages or typo squatters in the first page. Bing constantly returns that stuff in the first several results.
Another good reason to use ublock origin!
I think the worst I ever had was HSBC that asked me for fragments of my password, like characters 4, 6, 7, 11, and 12. Absolute bonkers of a security theatre.
Still, it pains me to see that practices from the early keylogger era are still "good practices".
Banks are notorious for taking security as a strict cost/savings measure. I would not be surprised if they enforce weak passwords stored in cleartext on purpose to save on support agents for the people that forget/lose their password. Imagine the customer service reviews: "they were able to find my password back, 5/5". Probably enough savings to offset the cost of refunding people that got their account pwnd. Cost of doing business.
Passkeys solve this problem but has its own usability issues.
Meanwhile U2F/Passkeys can't possibly be abused like this.
I've never lost a password because my backpack was overly abused.
My phone was destroyed not too long ago. I had been using it for passkeys. Oh no, all those passkeys were gone. No problem, when I got my new phone I just used the authenticator on my keyring to get back into my accounts. If my keyring authenticator got lost I'd just buy a new authenticator eventually and add it to my accounts.
Same with meta and Google where they often direct you to domains that aren't under their main one and it's actually legit, but there's no way to know. It's impossible to teach family members to pay attention if it's really that domain because it's often legit not that domain.
It does not detect domains.
Maybe you're not looking or maybe you're lucky.
Either way, many of us see it happen all the time there too. For GitHub especially, I almost never get the canonical repo for a project in my Google results. Phishing or innocuous, it's almost always some fork at the top and then a bunch of non-github.com sites.
Search is more or less "cooked" now, as they say. Google vs Bing vs DDG vs Kagi is mostly in the noise.
at least not Google
You're going to have a hard time convincing me the answer is yes.
Our company constantly has phishing copies of our real pages as first results in Google. We have no ability to get them taken down. It costs us serious money every year, and hurts our customers who get swindled because Google lets some brand new domain registered yesterday come before the company that has existed for 20 years.
If you haven't seen it on google, you aren't looking hard enough.
I know several people who search for important sites, click uncritically on links, and get scammed. This is not so good.
I've seen so many forms of malware repos working on a GitHub trends newsletter [1], mostly about crypto, NFTs, KMS, and similar stuff.
In the first runs of the project, I was so surprised by tens of malware repos that looked like trending repos. A lot of them share some common traits that made filtering feasible:
- Made by a fresh GitHub user - many created in the past few days.
- The average creation date of Stargazers accounts is very close to the repo creation date. If you take the mean time diff, those bad repos get exposed.
I reported 10s of malware repos, but then I gave up as I felt GitHub was not really doing enough to fight back. I was like... these guys don't seem to care, why should I?
God knows how many people have been abused by these malware repos on GitHub.
---
That being said, they do take action if you report the repo. So I'm guessing good users are doing the heavy lifting here with reporting. I don't believe GitHub is taking enough proactive measures, or maybe they do, but it's not working well, obviously.
https://hadid.dev/posts/github-trends/#growth-based-approach
I'm talking about 10s of repos flagged in a few hours. I don't think the volume would be that big for an expensive review.
https://github.blog/security/how-to-scan-for-vulnerabilities...
Note: Github has 2 auth systems. OAuth, and Github Auth. OAuth lists permissions but most apps use Github Auth which does not. So that app that gives you a badge or lets you comment could asking for write permission all your repos. You have no idea.
https://reducibl.com/writing/someone-used-my-repo-to-distrib...
> that’s not a developer contributing to open source. that’s someone manufacturing the appearance of activity.
> the attacker’s own profile? no bio, no avatar, 499 contributions crammed into january–february 2026.
> this wasn’t random
> i reported the repo to github. the ticket is open. but this raises a question i keep coming back to
I checked out the other pages on his website. And his other articles. AI-generated content is absolutely everywhere.
Oh, I'm so tired of AI-generated texts.
You've been living on such a principle? That sounds insane, why would something not be nefarious just because you can read the code?
The way I was "raised" by FOSS greybeards screaming at me through web forums, was that any software available on 3rd party websites anyone can upload anything to, will be filled with viruses and malware, and this was early 2000s. Surely people still advocate for this mindset today, when it's even more likely?
The free software license specifically gives the software an extra advantage in that changes to the software must be shared openly, if distributed as as binaries.
I think part of why this social engineering works so well is it takes advantage of that "many eyes" trust, where people are prone to delegating the responsibility of checking to the community and not do due diligence on themselves. I know I'm susceptible to it if I see a Github repo with more than 10k stars on it.
By now (imo), the entire web is gamed and no number can be trusted, I operate completely on a qualitative basis rather than quantitative, basically the only way I can get something out of the web. Ignore all and any numbers as any indication of anything.
It's not perfect, but surely it's easier to audit for malicious code than closed source.
Also, there is no shortage of volunteers looking out for code changes in established open source software. I think it's fair to exclude software that is very new and/or that has no users, which may be closer to equal footing with proprietary software.
Even for established proprietary software, you get volunteers watching out for changes in releases. Though, far less than open source, and more reserved for people who know reverse engineering.
> Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
[1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral...
Fun fact, I've spent the last few days fretting over whether to add H2 to my FabricMC mod. The problem being that I don't know what class-loading shenanigans could possibly occur if I jar-in-jar include it: what happens if another mod has H2 jar-in-jar included? Will my mod only reference its own version of H2? What implications [if any] would that have? Or will the Fabric Loader pick one? What if another mod has H2 shaded instead? Will the classes clash differently? What if, instead of jar-in-jar including it, I shade and relocate it? Does H2 or JDBC rely on reflection or services that would render it non-functional?
All recommendations point to using/creating a mod specifically for that library and depending on it. As luck would have it, one already exists on Modrinth. Except... I'm then requiring anyone who trusts my mod to also install this other mod that I have no control over. I just looked at the source code and it looks fine, but that's if you trust that the published jars are the exact result of that source code: maybe there's something malicious in the Gradle Wrapper binary. This mod could at any time become malicious and how would I detect that?
Guess what? I asked around and was summarily told to stop worrying, that it's fine. We on this website need to realise that we're a minority: NO ONE is routinely (or even occasionally) scrutinising the source code of the stuff they install from third-party websites. I have never, not once, seen anyone hash a downloaded file to check that it matches what's on the website. At the very most, I've seen people find the Github repo, see that it has a lot of stars, and then assume it's safe.
"He reverse-engineered an actual attack. The project contained scripts that enabled code injection and crypto-wallet theft. His post (highly recommended):"
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/como-identifiquei-um-golpe-em...
"The execp package (version 0.0.1) is an infamous, malicious dependency frequently used in recent supply-chain attacks and job interview scams. Threat actors embed this 9-year-old package into seemingly innocent "technical assessments" or projects. When you run npm install, it quietly executes arbitrary shell commands in the background to compromise your machine."
I have not, but in case you missed it, this principle has been used by open source proponents for decades. I'm an open source developer myself, but always found it odd.
"Closed source software is inscrutable, impossible for me to fix, impossible for me to review the source" is absolutely a distinct statement from "it is impossible to hide malware in open-source software". I've literally never heard someone claim the latter.
(edit for coherency, thanks graemep)
No nobody said "exactly that". But many times I've seen people claiming to trust open source as it is safer and people can check and build themselves. Seen it too many times. But reality is different than what is claimed.
You didn't use the word "safe", you used the relative term "safer", and on average, it is harder to hide ill intent in open source software, there's a greater chance it will eventually be discovered. The blast radius is larger for open source (because the barrier to using it is lower), which increases the number of people impacted, but an increase in the number of people impacted also increases the chance of discovery and motivation to address it once discovered.
Approximately nobody can read other people's code for intent or quality, let alone to surface malware meant to be hidden in it.
For almost everyone, the only hope is that somebody else validated the code you want to use before you choose to use it and successfully interfered with its distribution upon finding an issue. That's why the culture of automatic-updating package managers and bloated dependency graphs are so dangerous and why inserting delays into package managers can make such a difference in exposure to supply chain attacks for those that are intent to use them.
It's true that open source provides the transparency that makes any kind of third-party validation possible, but closed source benefits from commercial vendors staking their brand on what they release. It's a tradeoff, not a straightforward win for one side.
That's not a distinction that people really benefit from.
Approximately nobody can read other people's code for intent or quality
GitHub is not a curated software repository. It's essentially no different from some random stranger linking to some binaries on a forum. (There are communities that seem to have no concerns about running unknown binaries from strangers in forum threads, but I wouldn't recommend it.)
No is saying this. I think you have misunderstood the principles of open source. I'd rather be able to verify the code i am running, then it being locked down, propreitery.
I have the possibilty to audit FOSS. Cant do it for propreitery software
The catch is the eyeballs can also be used to generate exploits.
- Application.cmd or Launcher.cmd
- loader.exe or luajit.exe or another_name.exe
- random_name.cso or random_name.txt
- lua51.dll
the ethos of open source is that bugs and malicious code are more likely to be spotted.
we’re discussing this on hn right now strictly because the code is open, the abusive code was found because it is open.
abusive people will make abusive software. the problem lies in the fact that despite absolutely having the resources, microsoft won’t do anything about it, not in the fact that we can see the abuse.
the problem is microsoft, yet again.
https://dev.to/andersoncontreira/warning-to-developers-a-new...
A “recruiter” (sometimes pretending to be a CEO/HR) contacts you. The job looks amazing — above-market salary, remote position, paid in USD, etc. They ask for your CV and GitHub. They say you’re “approved for the next stage” without any real interview. Before the call, they send you a codebase to review or modify as a “technical test.”
When I get one of these, I automatically spin up a cloned VM, and test it there, which for the most part it gets infected immediately. as I watch the VM connect to odd places ( C&C computers ) for which I add any names/IP addresses to my host file, and then spin up another cloned VM, with the adjustments to the hosts file, and watch the malware get all lonely... but once, it was able to escape the VM... so I had to scramble to disinfect both the RM and the VM, and then update, and look around for hardening tools.
Its satisfying to delete an infected VM, with a "Not this time Jack."
I recently discovered a campaign where somebody was forking very small but useful codebases, and replacing the distributable with some malware, and making the repository have better SEO with changes to the README. My case was a simple macOS application that could be used to control some Phillips LED light strip.
I reported it to GitHub and it was removed within 24 hours.
I discovered another repository like this, and they still haven't replied since (one month).
No clue how their malware reports work. I'm surprised they don't partner with some antivirus company to at least scan "releases" for malware (not repositories themselves)
...like Windows Defender? Oh, the irony :D
- This is a new repository, not a fork
- All repositories have different contributors and different names
From the last two points, it becomes clear that even if we find one such repository, we won’t be able to find other similar repositories using it.
Also, github doesn't delete repositories and accounts, they mark them as deleted. If you use their api you can still list them.
Where are all the training-data poisoning repositories? Those set up so the next generation LLMs will be trained to include malware in the code they generate. Isn't that the new kind of supply-chain attack that's probably happening right now?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48594733
https://pypi.org/project/prylint/
> A Rust reimplementation of pylint that produces byte-for-byte identical output — 15–2300× faster (median ~85×).
> prylint is not "inspired by" pylint. [...] Where pylint has bugs, prylint reproduces them. Where pylint crashes, prylint reports the same crash message.
If GitHub can't respond to tickets pointing out obvious pirated software, I don't think they care about anything anyone puts up.
And Linux has no warning and no button to check the program with antivirus before running. How worse could it be?
In comparison, on Android and iOS there are sandboxes, and you can run any program relatively safely as long as you don't grant dangerous permissions and your kernel is not outdated. And even if you grant permissions, the malware still won't be able to read your browser cookies or the messages in your Matrix client.
Linux needs to be better that this. Linux seems to be built on presumption that you either download the code from official repository you trust, or write your own, and doesn't support safe execution of third-party or closed-source programs. For example, if you run proprietary software, it might scan through your data, silently collect your hardware identifiers (like motherboard serial number) to better track and identify you and Linux does not prevent this.
Linux main feature is that you are free to do anything you want.
Linux does verify signatures for packages from official repos.
Linux has features like SELinux and AppArmor.
If you want to install a random package, you are free to do and its your responsibility. Equivalent is side loading in android.
On iOS Apple doesn't even let you have full Firefox... That is wrong. And yet, there have always been exploits.
I actually ran Windows games like Cyberpunk in qemu on a Linux host without performance loss, but that required adding a dedicated GPU for guest and to use realtime audio, one needs to pass through an audio card into the guest.
Furthermore, the CPU already provides a "sandbox" (isolated memory) for processes. The problem is that Linux allows the program to ask the kernel to do anything.
> Linux has features like SELinux and AppArmor.
Neither SELinux not AppArmor allows to show a question "would you like to allow program N to access your microphone" or "would you like to let the program connect to github.com? (Yes) (No) (With decrypting SSL traffic)". They look like they are made to comply with some outdated standards from 80s.
The best you can do today is either write your own sandbox around Linux namespaces (very complicated), or try lightweight VMs like Firecracker, or paravirtualization (like VM but with a shared kernel). Those solutions are made for server use, not for desktop, and require lot of work and programming.
> If you want to install a random package, you are free to do and its your responsibility. Equivalent is side loading in android.
I want to install random packages and still be safe. That's the point of installing an OS, to be able to run random programs on the computer.
Permissions on microphone device would work, build your own UI / virtual device or generate one with claude if you really want popups.
> "would you like to let the program connect to github.com? (Yes) (No) (With decrypting SSL traffic)"."
I actually have something for this. Firewall everything blocked, domains unblocked via DNS request if I allow them.
Linux is very powerful here compared to iOS - can you block specific domains there?
> The best you can do today is either write your own sandbox around Linux namespaces (very complicated), or try lightweight VMs like Firecracker, or paravirtualization (like VM but with a shared kernel).
What do you think the sandbox on ios/android is?, still a vm/namespace/container...
> require lot of work and programming.
Sure, but you learn.
> I want to install random packages and still be safe. That's the point of installing an OS, to be able to run random programs on the computer.
That's not true anywhere. I would not feel safe with random apks or random store entries on android OR iOS. On iOS i lived through the whole 'access a webpage to get jailbreak' phase... with no way around it since mandatory safari
So, other OSs just give you the impression of safety. And you're locked. (iOS with safari...)
On Linux you are free, up to your capabilities.
I ended up with writing a FUSE-based emulation in Python, but there are lot of issues with permissions and namespaces:
- I could run my /proc emulator in the same PID namespace as the target, but in a different mount namespace so that I can mount real /proc there. This is not safe because the target could send signals or ptrace my emulator and gain access to the real /proc. Especially if it is an AI agent, they are pretty capable.
- I could run the emulator in a different mount and PID namespaces but then the emulator needs to translate PIDs into the target namespace, and for this I need to know the format of all files and where they contain PIDs and it is a pain
- running the poorly coded emulator as a root is not an option. The sandbox must work without root.
- ideally the emulator should run as a different user because Linux provides the strongest isolation for processes of different users, but in this case I won't be able to access target's /proc entries.
Also, running a program is the most basic functionality of an OS and you suggest that I need to write my own sandbox to do this because it is not included with Linux. Maybe that is why this year still is not the year of Linux on desktop.
I'm saying other OSs are worse for sandboxing.
How would you achieve what you want on MacOS or Windows? (or others?), what do you think goes on behind the scenes?
I would set up a VM if i were that paranoid btw. Qemu, docker, deploy the container to it, vnc or gpu access.
Also, one question for you, since you brought up microphone, how do you defend from Microsoft/Google/Apple deciding to spy on you and access the microphone? (secret court order or who knows why in the future)
Apple might have something made for the government. They are very cooperative and routinely remove VPN apps from the repository at the request of Russian government, probably they will happily cooperate with US government as well.
> how do you defend from Microsoft/Google/Apple deciding to spy on you
My smartphone is in airplane mode since purchase and doesn't have a SIM card. I am considering options to port an open-souce firmware like Lineage OS, patch proprietary firmware or make mix of both. However to do this I need a realistic emulator that cannot be easily detected and that emulates at least some of phone hardware so that I can see what the programs try to do and where they try to connect to. Obviously there will be no Google services and similar software, mostly open-source apps from F-Droid.
As for computer, I use Linux so I guess I am relatively safe.
why not put that effort into improving stuff / finding solutions?
There's like 2 or maybe 3 phone models in the world without an outdated kernel in Android.
And then sure, Android and iOS sandboxing is better but in the same time, the quality of the apps and the vetting is 100x worse than your average Linux distribution so I'm not sure that makes up the difference.
You could restrict yourself to the official repositories, but there is a limited selection of software. There are no closed-source software, like audio editing plugins, graphic editors, games, AI agents and so on. Even open-source software is often missing in official repositories.
You can constrast that with the Play Store where just searching for ChatGPT brings you a fake app on top (and before you bring the appstore, it was the same there until they banned the keyword after some bad press)
And yeah it's up to you if you install something outside of repositories, it's your computer.
In reality, third-party software like Docker or Node.JS typically suggests that you sudo-curl-bash the script from the Internet. How worse could it be.
I want a program that can delete or encypt all my files. I want a program that can 0 or encrypt any chunk of memory. Otherwise I'm just buying a useless toy not a computer.
MS Windows
Maybe they want to get into "trending" section, or to have higher position in search results (maybe Github or Google prioritizes repositories updated recently)?