4 ms·
It is benefit vs cost: for me it is acceptable because i want to be able to do whatever i want with my computer using applications that can freely interact with
by danieldk 9y ago
It is benefit vs cost: for me it is acceptable because i want to be able to do whatever i want with my computer using applications that can freely interact with each other without the OS getting in my way.
It is not the eighties anymore. Software is exploited through malicious files that exploit vulnerabilities in file readers (e.g. malicious PDFs). Software distribution sites get compromised (Handbrake, Transmission, Linux Mint), etc. Signatures and proper sandboxing reduce the attach service considerably.
Also, to address your point: sandboxing does not have to be binary. For instance, on macOS, a sandboxed app can request the user access to the calendar or address book. In that way some random app can't just steal your address book. [1] By default an application cannot open any files from the user's home directory, unless the user e.g. choses it using a file opening dialog (which runs out-of-process). On Flatpak on Linux, you as a user can decide to run an application with more entitlements (AFAIK currently only through the command-line).
We need to go to a world where the power lies with the user and not the developer to decide what an app can access, upload, etc. macOS sandboxing and Flatpaks on Linux are now providing part of that solution.
Also FWIW personally as a developer i highly dislike the idea of signed software. First of all i do not like the idea of having to ask (let alone pay) anyone to have my program be runnable by others
Flatpaks on Linux are normally signed, but they can be signed using GnuPG key. No need to pay or ask permission. Of course, the downside of this model is that it puts the burden on the user to check that the key is owned by a reputable person.
second i do not like the idea of my name being carried alongside my programs unless i explicitly add it
Most users should not want to run a program by a random person.
[1] Don't say that free software is not vulnerable to such problems. A popular free software documentation browser embeds a Google Ad, some open source applications use Google Analytics. I do not want to upload any data to Google. Unfortunately, as a user, I can only avoid that by inspecting all my outgoing connections. Of course, this is out of the reach of a normal user. I would absolutely be in favor of sandboxes where by default an app could not make any network connection.
- tzahola 9y ago“Most users should not want to run a program by a random person.” This is demonstrably not true. Most users will go out of their way to run any software if they believe that it will do what they’re looking for.
- marcoperaza 9y agoI think the emphasis is supposed to be on the ‘should’. That is, it’s not in the user’s rational interests to run such software. Hence the locked down security model all the platforms are moving toward.
- danieldk 9y agoAs the peer poster commenter points out, I said 'should' (as in: ought), I am not describing the factual situation.
- badsectoracula 9y ago> We need to go to a world where the power lies with the user and not the developer to decide what an app can access, upload, etc. macOS sandboxing and Flatpaks on Linux are now providing part of that solution. [..] Flatpaks on Linux are normally signed, but they can be signed using GnuPG key. No need to pay or ask permission. Of course, the downside of this model is that it puts the burden on the user to check that the key is owned by a reputable person. I do not see those as placing power in the hands of the user, i see it more as placing power in the hands of the platform holder the developer develops for and the user uses. The user should be able to do whatever he pleases, even at the cost of the developer's wishes and to do this, the platform must allow the user to subvert both the platform's restrictions and the program's requests. Anything that doesn't put the user in a position of utmost authority and trust is not something that places powers in the hands of the user.