4 ms·
Maybe the future is in fully sandboxed/containerized apps, where each action outside of sandbox/container is confirmed by the user.
by pulse7 7y ago
Maybe the future is in fully sandboxed/containerized apps, where each action outside of sandbox/container is confirmed by the user.
- y04nn 7y agoOn freeBSD there is jails since year 2000.
- blaser-waffle 7y agoYeah I think about that each time my boss talks about how new and great docker and kubernetes are. It was old hat on FreeBSD 4.0 mate...
- _jal 7y agoJails, yes; k8, no. But I do have to say, the more Canonical and Redhat attempt to "innovate", the more I appreciate FreeBSD.
- UI_at_80x24 7y agoWhen Docker was first introduced this is exactly the niche I thought it was going to fill. After I elbows deep into it I saw that wasn't the case. I still think something like it could evolve to fill that role.
- vsareto 7y agoAlert fatigue -> user accepts everything
- asdkhadsj 7y agoIs there a better solution though? I agree that's a super real thing, but having no security at all (as is the case now, basically) is infinitely worse. We would need to change some things, but I'd love to know if some random lib I'm using is trying to do things my application shouldn't. Or if something I installed, say Docker, is trying to access my photos or ssh keys.
- stan_rogers 7y agoSee Windows Vista for reference.
- GordonS 7y agoThis was my first thought too! It was also my first thought after I recently upgraded MacOS, and was bombarded with multiple permission dialogs whenever I did anything.
- vokep 7y agoTrue, but this just makes the point more. Because after that was 7, with lessons learned. Gotta start somewhere
- yarrel 7y agoThat was my experience of SELinux.
- _jal 7y agoThat is a super-broken future. I mean, that's working... sort of OK for cell-phone-style use, where the vast amount of use is single-service, casual human-computer interaction. It is horrible for any reasonable professional workflow. Even if you get permissions lined up correctly once, when you change your workflow, shit breaks. and more subtly, the way permissions accrete through reactive interactive dialogs, folks become less secure over time - past permission "paths" enable capabilities that the user no longer even remembers making. More formal ways of defining security policy of course work better (I deal with that sort of thing for a living), but expecting normal people to be able to understand how to, e.g., use `restorecon` or the moral equivalent is a nonstarter. Personally, I'm headed back to Linux when I need to replace the Macbook I'm typing on. I'm no longer the target MacOS user, and I'm not going to rely on a machine I don't control.