3 ms·

> trust 100% the software that we run on our machine Wow! I’m sorry, this is very naive and short-sighted position, especially for a Linux user. Malware has be

by chem83 3y ago

> trust 100% the software that we run on our machine Wow! I’m sorry, this is very naive and short-sighted position, especially for a Linux user. Malware has been known to evade the open-source scrutiny and even a few days of exposure would be enough to make significant harm to certain users. Your data may not be that value or sensitive, but that’s not universally true. Most users have no idea what software is running in the Linux machines given the very complex dependency chains that exist on modern systems. Also, companies’ motivations may not be evil, but it doesn’t mean they’re in the best interest of their users, for example Canonical and their ad deal with Amazon. While I’m in favor of convenience and by no means a free software absolutist, you can’t blame the Wayland developers for trying to hold a zero-trust or trust-minimization position.

Ferret7446 3y ago
You can because it's pointless. If you run a malicious program, it can read other process memory and all the files owned by your user. The fact that it can't read another GUI window is security theater. You've made everything a lot less useful for the user without providing any security.
- glandium 3y ago
  With this kind of logic, you don't fix any security hole, because you can't fix them all at once.
- chlorion 3y ago
  >it can read other process memory and all the files owned by your user Tools like flatpak and bwrap exist. A process in a bwrap sandbox can't read other processes memory or any files that I didn't bind into the sandbox. If I want to run an X11 GUI app in a sandbox, it can trivially escape. Wayland makes it possible to do this without a trivial escape. Also, processes cannot read other processes memory without being a parent process or something, or having root, and with bwrap they can't even see other processes running on the system at all.
- 418tpot 3y ago
  You can use linux namespaces or a tool like bubblewrap to sandbox the process which makes it reasonably secure. However if you're running a GUI app that rendres to an X11 server all your security gains go out the window.

by chem83 3y ago

Ferret7446 3y ago

You can because it's pointless. If you run a malicious program, it can read other process memory and all the files owned by your user. The fact that it can't read another GUI window is security theater. You've made everything a lot less useful for the user without providing any security.

glandium 3y ago
With this kind of logic, you don't fix any security hole, because you can't fix them all at once.
chlorion 3y ago
>it can read other process memory and all the files owned by your user Tools like flatpak and bwrap exist. A process in a bwrap sandbox can't read other processes memory or any files that I didn't bind into the sandbox. If I want to run an X11 GUI app in a sandbox, it can trivially escape. Wayland makes it possible to do this without a trivial escape. Also, processes cannot read other processes memory without being a parent process or something, or having root, and with bwrap they can't even see other processes running on the system at all.
418tpot 3y ago
You can use linux namespaces or a tool like bubblewrap to sandbox the process which makes it reasonably secure. However if you're running a GUI app that rendres to an X11 server all your security gains go out the window.