4 ms·

Isn't the article's title misleading? It made me think that the new snap format is introducing an additional security risk, when what's really the case is that

by seeekr 11y ago

Isn't the article's title misleading? It made me think that the new snap format is introducing an additional security risk, when what's really the case is that snap on Ubuntu desktop fails to provide any additional security over other packaging formats when the packaged binary uses X11 because the latter is insecure by default in certain ways (the example given is key logging, not sure if there's other ways). I understand that some important Ubuntu person made a claim that Ubuntu's Snap is improving security, and that it's reasonable to counter that and state when and how it does not justify that claim, but choosing a non-misleading and somewhat click-bait-y title would still be appreciated. (At least when posting it to HN.)

okso 11y ago
The title of the article is completely misleading. Snaps are described as more secure than apt in that article.
danieldk 11y ago
(the example given is key logging, not sure if there's other ways) You can get mouse events besides keystroke events, grab windows including the root window (screenshots), you can send keystrokes to other applications. tl;dr assume no isolation between any X11 applications. Typing in your credentials in some terminal? You should trust all other X11 applications that are currently running, including the browser that runs untrusted programs all the time. (There is a workaround: start applications in separate Xephyr sessions.)
fweespee_ch 11y ago
https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/04/13/snaps-for-classic-ubuntu/ https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/04/13/snaps-for-classic-ubu... > The security mechanisms in snap packages allow us to open up the platform for much faster iteration across all of our flavours as snap applications are isolated from the rest of the system. Users can install a snap without having to worry whether it will have an impact on their other apps or their system. Similarly, developers have a much better handle on the update cycle as they can decide to bundle specific versions of a library with their app. Transactional updates make deployments of snap packages more robust and reliable. > By bringing snap packages to Ubuntu 16.04 LTS we are unifying the experience for Ubuntu developers, whether they are creating software for PC, Server, Mobile, and IoT Devices. Snapcraft, a tool available for snap development, makes it easy for developers to package their apps and dependencies. Developers targeting snap packages get a great environment to write and test their applications – directly on their desktop, rather than being forced to use a device or a virtual machine. I think it is just a poorly worded announcement that implied security isolation on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS when that was not the intention. Similarly, they are just as secure as apt so there is no loss of security so the claim of the OP's title is misleading.
mangecoeur 11y ago
Accurate title would be "Snap packages can't address security failings of X".
- niemeyer 11y ago
  Indeed, or any other case where the application is granted permission to do something sensitive (camera?) and abuses that trust. Even in those cases, though, it is an improvement to know the access exists, and to have control over it. Some more details about snap interfaces: http://blog.labix.org/2016/04/22/snappy-interfaces http://blog.labix.org/2016/04/22/snappy-interfaces
zzalpha 11y ago
Anything that encourages users to be more cavalier about installing software because they think they're protected is a security risk. So if you want to lob accusations of inaccurate or misleading claims, better to aim them at Canonical, who are pitching this as a security panacea when it's anything but.

by seeekr 11y ago

okso 11y ago

The title of the article is completely misleading. Snaps are described as more secure than apt in that article.

danieldk 11y ago

(the example given is key logging, not sure if there's other ways) You can get mouse events besides keystroke events, grab windows including the root window (screenshots), you can send keystrokes to other applications. tl;dr assume no isolation between any X11 applications. Typing in your credentials in some terminal? You should trust all other X11 applications that are currently running, including the browser that runs untrusted programs all the time. (There is a workaround: start applications in separate Xephyr sessions.)

fweespee_ch 11y ago

https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/04/13/snaps-for-classic-ubuntu/ https://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/04/13/snaps-for-classic-ubu... > The security mechanisms in snap packages allow us to open up the platform for much faster iteration across all of our flavours as snap applications are isolated from the rest of the system. Users can install a snap without having to worry whether it will have an impact on their other apps or their system. Similarly, developers have a much better handle on the update cycle as they can decide to bundle specific versions of a library with their app. Transactional updates make deployments of snap packages more robust and reliable. > By bringing snap packages to Ubuntu 16.04 LTS we are unifying the experience for Ubuntu developers, whether they are creating software for PC, Server, Mobile, and IoT Devices. Snapcraft, a tool available for snap development, makes it easy for developers to package their apps and dependencies. Developers targeting snap packages get a great environment to write and test their applications – directly on their desktop, rather than being forced to use a device or a virtual machine. I think it is just a poorly worded announcement that implied security isolation on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS when that was not the intention. Similarly, they are just as secure as apt so there is no loss of security so the claim of the OP's title is misleading.

mangecoeur 11y ago

Accurate title would be "Snap packages can't address security failings of X".

niemeyer 11y ago
Indeed, or any other case where the application is granted permission to do something sensitive (camera?) and abuses that trust. Even in those cases, though, it is an improvement to know the access exists, and to have control over it. Some more details about snap interfaces: http://blog.labix.org/2016/04/22/snappy-interfaces http://blog.labix.org/2016/04/22/snappy-interfaces

zzalpha 11y ago

Anything that encourages users to be more cavalier about installing software because they think they're protected is a security risk. So if you want to lob accusations of inaccurate or misleading claims, better to aim them at Canonical, who are pitching this as a security panacea when it's anything but.