The AUR is user supported and thus malware sneaks into packages all the time, although admittedly not to this scale. Still, it's pointedly not secure and has always had "here be dragons" signs plastered all around it.

Arch is fine if you do not use AUR. If you use AUR check everything.

Most distros are too. All the big distros have pretty good track records.

There are definitely LTS distros where the official packages are not updated ASAP. Npm lets package authors publish new versions to all users immediately. Anything that doesn’t allow that is better. Some distros only incorporate patch/security updates for example.

AUR is worse, in that there may not be official authors and you can take over releases of a package. Like, you’ll have random users publishing the release for some application that doesn’t have their own Arch release. And if that user disappears, someone else may take it over

Running external code will always be a risk. Even if it is not intended to be malicious it could still have issues that compromise security.

Read the source. If you don't have the time then you shouldn't run the software.

Min Release Age of 7-30 days covers the majority of potential issues with 0 effort.

All major Node package managers should support it by now.

Prom was the best IIRC, yarn second, but even npm is catching up

> Who is doing package management right these days? Who is doing it securely?

QBASIC. When you need a package you type it in from a magazine. Virtually anything you could ever need is only 1-12 weeks away.

It's a lost battle.

Everything will need to be run in a VM separated from your main desktop which should have your data and a minimal amount of apps.

Qubes OS was ahead of it's time.

> Who is doing package management right these days? Who is doing it securely?

The malware was limited to package sources that I understand to be disabled by default, if you're using Arch Linux. These package sources carry clear warnings that the packages they provide are controlled by third-parties and entirely unvetted by the distro maintainers. [0][1]

If your assertion is that any package management system that permits the installation of packages that aren't vetted by the maintainers of the -er- OS that uses that package management system is "not doing it securely", then the only one that's even vaguely "doing it securely" is Apple's iOS.

I'm of the opinion that permitting users of a general-purpose computer to install arbitrary software is a good thing, and is pretty much the entire point of a general-purpose computer. I'd call computers that make that effectively impossible "appliances". There's very definitely a place for appliances, [2] but seeking to turn every computer into an appliance is massively destructive.

[0] <https://aur.archlinux.org/>

[1] <https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository>

[2] Reliable computers that you never have to think about because they simply never fail to perform the useful tasks they were designed to do are great.