3 ms·
It has to be. The capabilities exposed via the X socket are way too powerful since they allow the application to mess with any other application running on that
by samus 2y ago
It has to be. The capabilities exposed via the X socket are way too powerful since they allow the application to mess with any other application running on that X server. There are sandboxing solutions which give each applications its own X instance, which is quite similar to the way Wayland isolates applications from each other, and shares the same disadvantages.
- iforgotpassword 2y agoUsually people run all their apps unsandboxed anyways, so cool that Wayland prevents me from accessing any other app via its protocol - too bad I can just open any other process's memory via /proc, or read any sensitive data it stored in $HOME. It's been a long time since I daily drove Windows, but I'd assume it's still the same situation over there. I don't care. Sandboxing is annoying, cumbersome. I'm not going to create a container for every single app I run, so Wayland brings zero additional security. If once in a honeymoon I need to run shady software I use a VM.
- samus 2y agoOf course it has to be used with another sandboxing layer to be effective. You don't have to create a container by yourself, a good desktop will do it for you. One such solution is Flatpak. Many applications don't work that great with Flatpak yet and require quite sweeping additional privileges, but we will probably see improvements over time. There's nothing wrong with users deciding to just have a common folder with all their data, but some applications are of more sensitive nature than others and it should be possible to secure them better. For example password managers or terminals.