Hi Claudia,

On Sunday, October 18th, 2026 at 6:31 PM, Claudia Pellegrino 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> One practical method you can use to detect this pattern: if the 

> `Maintainer` account has a line that says “Inactive since $DATETIME” 

> *and* `Last Packager` is an Arch Linux Package Maintainer *and* `Last 

> Updated` is very close to $DATETIME, then you can be 99 % sure that it’s 

> a case of a malicious commit that was rewritten and force pushed similar 

> to how tippfehlr did.
> 

> If the purge was recent and you’d like to see a copy of the purged 

> commit(s), you can contact the Package Maintainer who is marked `Last 

> Packager` and ask them to send it to you. Whenever I purge a commit from 

> the AUR, I usually keep the clone on my computer for at least seven more 

> days so I can fetch it from the reflog on request if anyone wants to see 

> it for forensics.

The heuristic you describe (Inactive-since ≈ Last Updated, Last Packager = TU) 
is solid, but today every watcher has to reverse-engineer it from three 
disconnected fields, and it only works after someone like you has already done 
the cleanup and remembers it. A first-class mechanism, say, an explicit 
"security hold" state on a pkgbase, visible in the metadata the way 
orphan/maintainer already is, would give the same signal without depending on 
TU memory or on field coincidences that future cleanup styles might not 
reproduce. Same friction, but declared instead of implied. Worth considering 
whenever the event-visibility work happens
 

> Thank you for your effort and watchfulness. However, if by “them” you 

> mean the fennekuiper account, no need to watch that one specifically. 

> Fennekuiper was suspended indefinitely. 


On "them": I meant the packages, not the account, the 13 packages stay on my 
list: a PKGBUILD that was compromised once has a different prior than one that 
never was, no matter who cleaned it up or who currently holds the maintainer 
field. That's about the packages' history, not about fennekuiper. The "list" 
I'm referencing is a kind of preemptive-IOC I'm implementing in 
https://github.com/emiliano-go/trustsight , just in case. Better safe than 
sorry :D.

Thanks for your response.

Bests,

Emiliano


> Emiliano Gandini Outeda
> emiliano-go[dot]com
> emiliano.gandini[at]protonmail[dot]com

Attachment: publickey - [email protected] - 0xF759D6D4.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to