3 ms·
Sandboxing is fine, but it sounds like Snaps/Flatpaks don't actually do it because that would be too hard - so what's the point? I get that some packages do ac
by Jouvence 6y ago
Sandboxing is fine, but it sounds like Snaps/Flatpaks don't actually do it because that would be too hard - so what's the point?
I get that some packages do actually have sandboxing, but unless it is mandatory and enforced I feel like I'm better off avoiding the ecosystem entirely and dealing with app isolation myself, using containers or VMs.
- viraptor 6y agoSnap/Flatpak are not doing it because that's not the layer which "does it". They provide the framework which allows since sandboxing today and will provide better sandboxing tomorrow. It's up to the app distributors to support it or not. We won't get full support immediately either. It may be too hard today. But that's less "Flatpak is a security nightmare" and more "we're not using the features we have very well yet". I feel like some people expected 100% targeted profile for each app or will declare sandboxing a failure. This stuff will take years.
- als0 6y agoOn average, I've found Snaps to be better sandboxed. But there are plenty of things to dislike about Snap e.g. not respecting XDG base directory spec, persistent daemon running as root, requiring sudo, unable to control when it decides to autoupdate, coarse grain "connection" system ...and more. A lot of obvious design mistakes that don't get fixed for one reason or another.
- blacksmith_tb 6y agoWell, they are also marketed as a way of isolating dependencies, which they do actually manage to some degree. So they could be weak security-wise without being completely pointless?