Why curl | sudo bash is good: it is simple single line, and uses the same channel that downloading a repository signing key would.

gistfile1.md

Easy one line Chef installation for all platforms (except windows)

curl https://www.opscode.com/chef/install.sh | sudo bash

That's it. This can be put in any instructions, such as a README or someone's blog, since the logic is in the shell script. Provided you download the script using https, the file has standard levels of authentication and encryption protecting it from manipulation.

This is obviously a shell script, if you're really concerned about the argument that it may contain nefarious activities within, you can easily review it before you run it.

wget https://www.opscode.com/chef/install.sh 
less install.sh
sudo bash install.sh

More complex alternatives

Without a shell script, you must have a website that selects the correct installation procedure based on platform, platform version, and architecture, because you cannot provide a single binary package that is correct for all of them. Source installs require extensive configuration of a development environment and multiple dependencies.

See the old Chef 10 installation directions for specific examples of the complexity of supporting multiple platforms and versions this way.

Source install:

# multiple steps to install development dependencies, which all vary by platform
sudo apt-get install build-essential ruby ruby-dev rake 
# download the source
wget https://www.somewhere.com/chef/source.tgz
tar -xvzf source.tgz
cd source
rake gem
sudo gem install pkg/chef-*.gem

Binary install for a single platform:

wget https://www.somewhere.com/chef/install-ubuntu-12.04-x86.deb -O /tmp/install.deb
sudo dpkg -i /tmp/install.deb
# or
sudo yum install wget
wget https://www.somewhere.com/chef/install-centos-6-x86.rpm -O /tmp/install.rpm
sudo rpm -Uvh /tmp/install.rpm

But does being in a regular package make you trust it more than a shell script? Most distribution packages contain shell scripts that are run on installation, and they're harder to review than a simple shell script. The required commands differ depending on platform. For example:

dpkg -e /tmp/install.deb /tmp/install.conffiles
less /tmp/install.conffiles/postinst

What about dependencies? Does your platform have all the required dependencies? Are they new enough (no, unless you're on the most recent version). So now you also need to add a repository for all of these platforms to get updated dependencies. All of these are going to need to be backported and maintained for multiple versions by someone.

A distribution package is a versioned item that allows reproducible installs. I would never run a curl-bash pipe on a production system. It depends on your website being up, network connectivity being intact, and most importantly, expects that a shell script somewhere on the Internet hasn't been modified to do something other than originally planned (whether that's install a different version, or something more malicious).

"Source installs require extensive configuration of a development environment and multiple dependencies" is an interesting statement: You'd rather each user go to the trouble of figuring out how to unroll your install script, instead of doing it right yourself in the first place. This is what burns me the most.

curl | bash is indefensible. Just because the transport is over HTTPS doesn't guarantee the content hasn't been maliciously modified on the server. It also doesn't guarantee that you won't receive a partial download that happens to stop at some inopportune time and delete your entire filesystem. Just say no.

This is horrible, apt/yum repositories are at least gpg signed. Spend a few minutes and set up your own apt/yum repo and sign it yourself. It's so easy with tools like aptly. Piping arbitrary shells scripts from the web into a shell with sudo rights is a freaking disease.

https://www.idontplaydarts.com/2016/04/detecting-curl-pipe-bash-server-side/

https://www.seancassidy.me/dont-pipe-to-your-shell.html

"uses the same channel that downloading a repository signing key would. "

This is so wrong. GPG will raise if anything is wrong with a key based on high strength encryption and alert the user. Just piping a script through bash, coupled with sudo, is giving someone complete control of your machine with no checks in place to know that the infrastructure has not been hacked and the contents of the script replaced. Its irresponsible to even compare the two as the same thing

I'm afraid I won't use Chef in the foreseeable future.

curl|bash is bad as much because it encourages new users to develop bad habits than because it is a horrible security risk.

A great example why curl | bash is a really bad idea: https://www.idontplaydarts.com/2016/04/detecting-curl-pipe-bash-server-side/

Good discussion why it makes no difference https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12766049

If you don’t trust the domain owners to not pwn your shit, don’t download and execute their stuff.

If you do, curl|bash is completely fine. sandstorm explains it well.

if you really just want to download and vet a 100 line (non-installer) script from a shady source, sure, do so. but don’t lie to yourself that you’d vet any real piece of software on your PC.

I have to agree with @jdsimpson: Aside from the other concerns raised here, 'curl | bash' is horrible from a security training standpoint, because it teaches both users and developers some very bad, very lazy habits. I ran across this thread just now in the course of teaching a young person exactly why the 'curl | sudo bash' that they ran yesterday was a bad idea, why they should never give unsigned, untrusted code root access to their machine, and why the bash script in question broke their laptop's network manager when it replaced zlib with a version that was incompatible with other packages provided in the Ubuntu repositories.

Of course, it wasn't obvious at the time what broke the laptop. Discovering and undoing the damage was a stressful waste of my time and hers, other than the teachable moment it provided.

The question to ask yourself is, if the developer didn't have the time, resources, or interest to create a package, sign it, and test it for compatibility with at least the stock set of packages for your distro, then why in the world would you give them root access to your machine?

then why in the world would you give them root access to your machine

Because that developer wrote some good software that I want to use?

It is completely understandable if a single developer in a small project doesn't want to create and maintain packages for deb, rpm, and dozen other package managers various linux systems use. Do you seriously expect everyone to build packages for your MacOS or Arch?

Curl+bash are there in every system. Easy to support, easy to run. If it doesn't work, revert to the last backup (btrfs snapshot and the like) that you should've made beforehand (teachable moment about the value of full-system backups right here).

And if you have any security concerns whatsoever, don't give root access. No matter what it is, dpkg or bash script. Don't run it as system root, run it in a container instead (lxc, docker). Bonus point: if it breaks something, you just lose a container with nothing else in it.

curl | bash should be treated as a warning that a project is very small and doesn't have enough community support (since noone else created 3rd party package yet). Nothing more, nothing less.

curl pipe bash is cool, but there a drawback - I cannot reload PATH and user has to type exec $SHELL by himself.

curl pipe bash is cool, but there a drawback - I cannot reload PATH and user has to type exec $SHELL by himself.

@yaitskov
you could try

curl https://raw.githubusercontent.com/xxx/bin/master/useradd.sh | sudo --preserve-env=SSH_AUTH_SOCK env PATH=$PATH bash -s -- [arg1] [arg2]