4 ms·

The security benefits are massive. X allows every application to take screenshots of the whole screen. 40 comments and nobody pointed out this benefit...

The security benefits are massive. X allows *every* application to take screenshots of the whole screen. 40 comments and nobody pointed out this benefit...

pmarreck 3y ago
Meanwhile, people who actually have to screen-share are having trouble in Wayland. So maybe this policy of "don't trust any code ever" has some downsides. It's the usual "convenience vs. security" debate all over again
- dralley 3y ago
  I've not had any issues with screen sharing in, like, 3 years. The problem is that people use video chat clients by vendors that don't give a crap about Linux.
  - pmarreck 3y ago
    The problem is that they don't always have a choice, depending on work context I do share your dismay at those apps, though (I primarily use Linux)
tocariimaa 3y ago
Doesn't Wayland WMs have to break those "security benefits" constantly to just be able to take a screenshot?
- Bu9818 3y ago
  Sensitive features like screenshots, input methods, screen locking and whatnot are behind extensions (or portals). I'm not familiar with the state of GNOME/KDE/Flatpak, but at least on the wlroots side of things it is true that currently these extensions are enabled and accessible by any process that can talk to the Wayland socket (breaking those security benefits, as you say). This is changing with protocols such as security-context that allow a sandbox engine like Flatpak (or your custom scripts) to restrict what features apps can use. (so your browser can't register an input method, or some random app can't lock the screen) https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/68 https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/m... https://github.com/swaywm/sway/pull/7648 https://github.com/swaywm/sway/pull/7648 https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/pull/4920 https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/pull/4920
Qwertious 3y ago
Even snap/flatpak frequently give flat-out full filesystem access, so the desktop is already insecure as heck and the security advantages are all theoretical. It's like nitpicking what lock the door has when the window is left wide open.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  Speak for yourself, I use proper sandboxing and it works.
enriquto 3y ago
> X allows every application to take screenshots of the whole screen. I have bad news for you: linux allows every application that you run to wipe out your entire home directory.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  Not when they are sandboxed, no. Also no, it's not "linux", it's every OS without per-application MAC or sandboxing.
Maken 3y ago
Until we have proper app sandboxing in Linux desktop, in the sense that third party proprietary programs use it, that's a minor concern.
- enriquto 3y ago
  > proper app sandboxing in Linux desktop, in the sense that third party proprietary programs use it Proper sandboxing is not something that third-party programs should get to decide to use or not. It should be the users of these programs that decide if they want to sandbox them or not, even if the application is unwilling. Sandboxing is an operating-system issue, not a packaging issue.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  > Until we have proper app sandboxing We have it and there are multiple tools like bubblewrap and co. You can already restrict applications if you want.

The security benefits are massive. X allows *every* application to take screenshots of the whole screen. 40 comments and nobody pointed out this benefit...

pmarreck 3y ago

Meanwhile, people who actually have to screen-share are having trouble in Wayland. So maybe this policy of "don't trust any code ever" has some downsides. It's the usual "convenience vs. security" debate all over again

dralley 3y ago
I've not had any issues with screen sharing in, like, 3 years. The problem is that people use video chat clients by vendors that don't give a crap about Linux.
- pmarreck 3y ago
  The problem is that they don't always have a choice, depending on work context I do share your dismay at those apps, though (I primarily use Linux)

tocariimaa 3y ago

Doesn't Wayland WMs have to break those "security benefits" constantly to just be able to take a screenshot?

Bu9818 3y ago
Sensitive features like screenshots, input methods, screen locking and whatnot are behind extensions (or portals). I'm not familiar with the state of GNOME/KDE/Flatpak, but at least on the wlroots side of things it is true that currently these extensions are enabled and accessible by any process that can talk to the Wayland socket (breaking those security benefits, as you say). This is changing with protocols such as security-context that allow a sandbox engine like Flatpak (or your custom scripts) to restrict what features apps can use. (so your browser can't register an input method, or some random app can't lock the screen) https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/68 https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/m... https://github.com/swaywm/sway/pull/7648 https://github.com/swaywm/sway/pull/7648 https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/pull/4920 https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/pull/4920

Qwertious 3y ago

Even snap/flatpak frequently give flat-out full filesystem access, so the desktop is already insecure as heck and the security advantages are all theoretical. It's like nitpicking what lock the door has when the window is left wide open.

goodpoint 3y ago
Speak for yourself, I use proper sandboxing and it works.

enriquto 3y ago

> X allows every application to take screenshots of the whole screen. I have bad news for you: linux allows every application that you run to wipe out your entire home directory.

goodpoint 3y ago
Not when they are sandboxed, no. Also no, it's not "linux", it's every OS without per-application MAC or sandboxing.

Maken 3y ago

Until we have proper app sandboxing in Linux desktop, in the sense that third party proprietary programs use it, that's a minor concern.

enriquto 3y ago
> proper app sandboxing in Linux desktop, in the sense that third party proprietary programs use it Proper sandboxing is not something that third-party programs should get to decide to use or not. It should be the users of these programs that decide if they want to sandbox them or not, even if the application is unwilling. Sandboxing is an operating-system issue, not a packaging issue.
goodpoint 3y ago
> Until we have proper app sandboxing We have it and there are multiple tools like bubblewrap and co. You can already restrict applications if you want.