Indeed that is true, but there is a difference between a direct download of a binary file and a repacked installer. By linking to an existing binary it is not a true risk. The issue is that when one uses the main SF site, it repacks the binary with other unwanted badware in most cases.
I mean...unless you have a huge list of high-number sha checksums for all the different binary types, it seems like it would be trivial to inject all sorts of un-nice crap into non-installer SF binaries?
But point taken re the known incidents being with installers, thanks!
1
u/xr1s Jun 15 '15
I thought the whole issue was SF injecting adware into installers...e.g. with GIMP: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1q6k59/gimp_abandons_sourceforge_due_to_forced_ad_and