Exodus Bitcoin Wallet: $490K Swindle
popey.com
tl;dr: 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, and if nothing changes, it likely won’t be the last. This post turned out longer than I expected. So if you don’t have the time there’s a briefer summary at the bottom under “In summary (the tl;dr)” along with my suggestions on what Canonical should do now.

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.

  • @delirious_owl
    2•4 months ago

    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

    • danielfgomOPEnglish
      4•4 months ago

      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

      • qaz
        1•4 months ago

        it should be MANDATORY that the developer is thoroughly vetted and approved and the code run and checked Brexit before publishing.

        Brexit?

    • @AProfessional@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1•4 months ago

      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.

      • @delirious_owl
        1•4 months ago

        Point me to the documentation that describes this

          • @delirious_owl
            1•4 months ago

            This isn’t even the right project’s documentation

              • @delirious_owl
                1•4 months ago

                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.

                • @AProfessional@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0•4 months ago

                  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.

      • @delirious_owl
        1•4 months ago

        Its pretty terrible compared to normal OS package managers.

        • Possibly linuxEnglish
          1•4 months ago

          How so? I just open up gnome software an search for the application I need

          • @delirious_owl
            1•4 months ago

            Cryptographic verification of the packages authenticity