4 ms·
The position of the Wayland project is that security isolation requires sandboxing. Otherwise, applications can do whatever you can do, including changing all y
by arghwhat 6y ago
The position of the Wayland project is that security isolation requires sandboxing. Otherwise, applications can do whatever you can do, including changing all your personal config files and scripts.
The security considerations in Wayland are primarily aimed at not being a weak link undermining sandboxing efforts, which is the case with X11.
Without sandboxing, writing to e.g. ~/.profile would in most cases be enough for a malicious application to take over the machine. Equivalents apply to all platforms.
- znpy 6y ago> The position of the Wayland project is that security isolation requires sandboxing. which is not really a step forward since now I have do go and sandbox every app.
- canofbars 6y agoYou don't have to, package maintainers and developers do. Flatpak gives them the tools to do this. Flatpak solves a lot of other problems like making program installs a user level task without touching the OS. Which is needed because in the future the OS will be an immutable image.
- Spivak 6y agoYou always had to. There’s no magic universe where an app has the full privilege to do everything you as a user can do while also preventing it from doing things that you could do. Whatever mechanism that enforces those restrictions is the sandbox.
- arghwhat 6y agoNo. It's a step forward because you can, but it's ultimately up to you. You're still better off with Wayland, but no matter what you use, there's a huge glaring security hole if things are not sandboxed.