3 ms·

I think the mistake (at least in today's world) is that un-sandboxed is the default. Even as a power user, I would like if most of the GUI programs on my comput

I think the mistake (at least in today's world) is that un-sandboxed is the default. Even as a power user, I would like if most of the GUI programs on my computer (web browser, word processor, etc.) were sandboxed, so I can focus most of my scrutiny on my IDE, toolchains, etc. The other aspect is that programs are traditionally really bad at being conscientious about your system, even when not being malicious. Windows programs have a tendency to put files wherever they feel like, although UAC has helped this to some degree. Plus, every program and its brother has its own update system that absolutely must run in the background constantly, even when I'm not using it.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> I think the mistake (at least in today's world) is that un-sandboxed is the default. Even as a power user, I would like if most of the GUI programs on my computer (web browser, word processor, etc.) were sandboxed, so I can focus most of my scrutiny on my IDE, toolchains, etc. As a desktop user I need little to none scrtuiny. My web browser, IDE, toolchains, IM, video player and computer games all work together well and while technically any one could own any other, this simply does not happen. It takes some (little) skill to avoid obvious malware, and then generally you're fine. On the other hand, I get to open my video file in my IDE, edit IM's data files in a word processor, and move things around seamlessly with OS; everything is expected to work and no program tries to lock me in. > The other aspect is that programs are traditionally really bad at being conscientious about your system, even when not being malicious. I don't think much has changed here. Phone apps are also not conscientious; they fight for your attention with other apps and with the entire operating system. The changelog of both Android and iOS is full of things done against app developers, because many popular app developers are willing to do anything imaginable to get your attention (and thus ad money). My point is - the problem isn't with sandboxing itself; it's with the web and mobile ecosystem that makes developers work against the interest of users, instead of for it. The sandboxing is just a symptom - something that is being done to mitigate the damage of greedy "entrepreneurs". Desktop environments don't need that much sandboxing because there isn't that much crap going on. I think the fact that desktops originally weren't connected to the Internet is a reason we've started with an open system, but it may be worth preserving this flexibility even in the Internet era.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  It also means opening a video file (or browsing a website, or editing a photo, etc.) can trigger code to read your documents and email it to someone else.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Yes, it does. But that rarely happens. Why is that? There's something with web/mobile that makes people afraid to do anything without sandboxing the living hell out of every app, even though we've managed to live with unsandboxed desktops without many such incidents. I can't exactly put my finger on what is going wrong (it has definitely something to do with installing random crap and the new business model of companies trying to monetize user's eyeballs and data), but the push towards sandboxing is a symptom of that problem.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      > even though we've managed to live with unsandboxed desktops without many such incidents Antivirus is mandatory on desktops
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  > As a desktop user I need little to none scrtuiny. My web browser, IDE, toolchains, IM, video player and computer games all work together well and while technically any one could own any other, this simply does not happen. It takes some (little) skill to avoid obvious malware, and then generally you're fine. It's not just downloading malware that is an issue; you also have to worry about security flaws in the apps you trust. Web browsers are a perfect example; they are constantly downloading untrusted code and executing it. Even when the javascript engine doesn't have a flaw, you have exploits like Rowhammer.js[1] which sidestep them entirely. > It takes some (little) skill to avoid obvious malware, and then generally you're fine. I think you're underestimating the knowledge needed to secure your computer properly, and overestimating the savy of the majority of users. The current state of computer security (huge botnets, etc.) is a testament to the fact that the current model isn't cutting it. > On the other hand, I get to open my video file in my IDE, edit IM's data files in a word processor, and move things around seamlessly with OS; everything is expected to work and no program tries to lock me in. If the lock in is an open file dialog, or passing a filename by command line, all of the examples you list would work fine. > Desktop environments don't need that much sandboxing because there isn't that much crap going on. You are missing an important difference; most users are far more liberal in downloading apps for mobile than for desktop, and if they were just as liberal on their desktops they would be pretty much guaranteed to get malware. Because of this, many apps which are only used in a browser on a computer are used as apps on mobile (which is needed at the very least for performance reasons). Sandboxes aren't perfect, but they move the ability to infect a device via installation from "totally trivial" to "requiring significant vulnerability". [1]: https://github.com/IAIK/rowhammerjs https://github.com/IAIK/rowhammerjs

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> I think the mistake (at least in today's world) is that un-sandboxed is the default. Even as a power user, I would like if most of the GUI programs on my computer (web browser, word processor, etc.) were sandboxed, so I can focus most of my scrutiny on my IDE, toolchains, etc. As a desktop user I need little to none scrtuiny. My web browser, IDE, toolchains, IM, video player and computer games all work together well and while technically any one could own any other, this simply does not happen. It takes some (little) skill to avoid obvious malware, and then generally you're fine. On the other hand, I get to open my video file in my IDE, edit IM's data files in a word processor, and move things around seamlessly with OS; everything is expected to work and no program tries to lock me in. > The other aspect is that programs are traditionally really bad at being conscientious about your system, even when not being malicious. I don't think much has changed here. Phone apps are also not conscientious; they fight for your attention with other apps and with the entire operating system. The changelog of both Android and iOS is full of things done against app developers, because many popular app developers are willing to do anything imaginable to get your attention (and thus ad money). My point is - the problem isn't with sandboxing itself; it's with the web and mobile ecosystem that makes developers work against the interest of users, instead of for it. The sandboxing is just a symptom - something that is being done to mitigate the damage of greedy "entrepreneurs". Desktop environments don't need that much sandboxing because there isn't that much crap going on. I think the fact that desktops originally weren't connected to the Internet is a reason we've started with an open system, but it may be worth preserving this flexibility even in the Internet era.

MichaelGG 11y ago
It also means opening a video file (or browsing a website, or editing a photo, etc.) can trigger code to read your documents and email it to someone else.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Yes, it does. But that rarely happens. Why is that? There's something with web/mobile that makes people afraid to do anything without sandboxing the living hell out of every app, even though we've managed to live with unsandboxed desktops without many such incidents. I can't exactly put my finger on what is going wrong (it has definitely something to do with installing random crap and the new business model of companies trying to monetize user's eyeballs and data), but the push towards sandboxing is a symptom of that problem.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    > even though we've managed to live with unsandboxed desktops without many such incidents Antivirus is mandatory on desktops
johncolanduoni 11y ago
> As a desktop user I need little to none scrtuiny. My web browser, IDE, toolchains, IM, video player and computer games all work together well and while technically any one could own any other, this simply does not happen. It takes some (little) skill to avoid obvious malware, and then generally you're fine. It's not just downloading malware that is an issue; you also have to worry about security flaws in the apps you trust. Web browsers are a perfect example; they are constantly downloading untrusted code and executing it. Even when the javascript engine doesn't have a flaw, you have exploits like Rowhammer.js[1] which sidestep them entirely. > It takes some (little) skill to avoid obvious malware, and then generally you're fine. I think you're underestimating the knowledge needed to secure your computer properly, and overestimating the savy of the majority of users. The current state of computer security (huge botnets, etc.) is a testament to the fact that the current model isn't cutting it. > On the other hand, I get to open my video file in my IDE, edit IM's data files in a word processor, and move things around seamlessly with OS; everything is expected to work and no program tries to lock me in. If the lock in is an open file dialog, or passing a filename by command line, all of the examples you list would work fine. > Desktop environments don't need that much sandboxing because there isn't that much crap going on. You are missing an important difference; most users are far more liberal in downloading apps for mobile than for desktop, and if they were just as liberal on their desktops they would be pretty much guaranteed to get malware. Because of this, many apps which are only used in a browser on a computer are used as apps on mobile (which is needed at the very least for performance reasons). Sandboxes aren't perfect, but they move the ability to infect a device via installation from "totally trivial" to "requiring significant vulnerability". [1]: https://github.com/IAIK/rowhammerjs https://github.com/IAIK/rowhammerjs