> They didn't invent flatpak for the sake of security [citation needed] Alex Larsson speaks to the "security model" in his blog posts. [0],[1],[2] Without a

> They didn't invent flatpak for the sake of security [citation needed] Alex Larsson speaks to the "security model" in his blog posts. [0],[1],[2] Without a strong security/sandboxing story, there is no flathub or general confidence in running binaries received directly from developers vs. the traditional distro model. Distros have historically served as trusted arbiters. One of Flatpak's stated goals is to bypass distros in the interests of enabling end-users to more closely track developer releases of software. This exposes end-users to substantial risks, and Flatpak relies on sandboxing to mitigate those risks. I find it obviously inconsistent with Alex's posts for Flatpak's GUI to claim apps are sandboxed, when they're directly accessing the host filesystem and/or user's home directory, and don't utilize portals. [0] https://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2017/01/18/the-flatpak-security-model-part-1-the-basics/ https://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2017/01/18/the-flatpak-securit... [1] https://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2017/01/20/the-flatpak-security-model-part-2-who-needs-sandboxing-anyway/ https://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2017/01/20/the-flatpak-securit... [2] https://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2017/01/24/the-flatpak-security-model-part-3-the-long-game/ https://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2017/01/24/the-flatpak-securit...