4 ms·
You are thinking of Snap probably. Some flatpaks have $HOME wide-open, but Flatpak itself has no mechanism to completely bypass the sandboxing, as evidenced by
by AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
You are thinking of Snap probably. Some flatpaks have $HOME wide-open, but Flatpak itself has no mechanism to completely bypass the sandboxing, as evidenced by things like Wireshark being unable to actually capture packets and many IDEs being unable to actually call build tools.
- yencabulator 4y ago> Some flatpaks have $HOME wide-open, but Flatpak itself has no mechanism to completely bypass the sandboxing The first one is the second one.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y agoWe're obviously using extremely different definitions of the word "completely". Flatpak sandboxes more than just file system access.
- yencabulator 4y agoAnd write access to $HOME lets a process climb out of the sandbox. Trying to make sense of Flatpak's threat model is just near-impossible. It might protect you from something, if the specific app's configuration told it to do so. Starting a random Flatpak app, you have no guarantees, and the UX doesn't communicate anything about this.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y agoI totally agree about letting applications determine their own defaults being a bad idea.
- Gigachad 4y agoWe are in a transition period. Starting with getting apps packaged in flatpak even if it doesn’t improve security, and then once that’s all done we can start tightening the restrictions.
- littlestymaar 4y agoIn that case can you please at least stop advertising flatpak for its security until it happen to be secure eventually…
- yencabulator 4y agoWe shall see. "And then, we add security" has so far never won.