3 ms·

> All of the examples are apps where the main use is manipulating files on the system. So do users, still can't overwrite system wide settings without first ge

by josefx 6y ago

> All of the examples are apps where the main use is manipulating files on the system. So do users, still can't overwrite system wide settings without first getting root. Decent sand boxing has to be granular enough to cover partial access. Of course the hard part on Linux would be locking access to files like ~/.bashrc without completely blocking access to the home directory, that probably would require an exhaustive list of all config files that are directly stored in home instead of a specialized sub folder.

foobar33333 6y ago
Flatpak apps can not access root owned files. They run as the user and the typical linux permissions apply. They can only gain access to root if they have filesystem access so they can load malware in to bashrc. The thing is this is exactly the same as traditional packaged linux software. Flatpak only offers the ability for extra security.
- josefx 6y ago
  > Flatpak apps can not access root owned files. I think I didn't make my point clear. I used that as an example of "needs to access files" not meaning "needs to access all files, including but not limited to configuration files". > Flatpak only offers the ability for extra security. With a permission model that apparently can't keep an image editing application from silently editing .bashrc .
  - foobar33333 6y ago
    >With a permission model that apparently can't keep an image editing application from silently editing .bashrc . It can, you can cut off all filesystem access or select certain areas. The problem is that programs often need special attention to make sure they work properly using flatpak portals. Currently not many devs are interested in doing this work since flatpak is pretty small right now. So for now we must assume that Gimp built from the official source, is not a malicious program. Like we have for the last 25 years.
    - takluyver 6y ago
      Yup, it's a classic catch 22. Sandboxing doesn't really work without developer cooperation. But there's little incentive for developers to work on it in apps that are easy to get outside the sandbox - or when it's easy to get extra permissions in a Flatpak.
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
You described what firejail is already doing.

by josefx 6y ago

foobar33333 6y ago

Flatpak apps can not access root owned files. They run as the user and the typical linux permissions apply. They can only gain access to root if they have filesystem access so they can load malware in to bashrc. The thing is this is exactly the same as traditional packaged linux software. Flatpak only offers the ability for extra security.

josefx 6y ago
> Flatpak apps can not access root owned files. I think I didn't make my point clear. I used that as an example of "needs to access files" not meaning "needs to access all files, including but not limited to configuration files". > Flatpak only offers the ability for extra security. With a permission model that apparently can't keep an image editing application from silently editing .bashrc .
- foobar33333 6y ago
  >With a permission model that apparently can't keep an image editing application from silently editing .bashrc . It can, you can cut off all filesystem access or select certain areas. The problem is that programs often need special attention to make sure they work properly using flatpak portals. Currently not many devs are interested in doing this work since flatpak is pretty small right now. So for now we must assume that Gimp built from the official source, is not a malicious program. Like we have for the last 25 years.
  - takluyver 6y ago
    Yup, it's a classic catch 22. Sandboxing doesn't really work without developer cooperation. But there's little incentive for developers to work on it in apps that are easy to get outside the sandbox - or when it's easy to get extra permissions in a Flatpak.

eeZah7Ux 6y ago

You described what firejail is already doing.