3 ms·
>Given how the posted described the optional `--no-sandbox` flag as "no sandbox on Linux", it's clear that they don't understand anything they're sharing, and t
by ementally 2y ago
>Given how the posted described the optional `--no-sandbox` flag as "no sandbox on Linux", it's clear that they don't understand anything they're sharing, and they just want to spread FUD.
Could you elaborate as you seem to be more "knowledgeable". This flag is clear at what it does and shouldn't be shipped into production. https://no-sandbox.io/ https://no-sandbox.io/
You can have a look where they specifically chose to force it https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop/commit/1ca0d821078286d5953cf0d598e6b97710f816ef https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop/commit/1ca0d8210...
- lynndotpy 2y agoYou're right. It seems I am eating my words on that item, the `--no-sandbox` flag does seem to be on in most Linux installs. From context and search, it looks necessary for it to work on Debian. Can confirm with `cat /usr/share/applications/signal-desktop.desktop`. This still would require a pretty sophisticated attack to take advantage of, but I wouldn't rule it out as an attack surface. (We regularly see iPhone exploits that attack font and image rendering, after all.) I'll amend my post given this.
- ementally 2y agoNo worries, but it is a legitimate attack vector given that sandboxing on Linux sucks unlike Windows and macOS, so it is much needed. There's an issue open to provide a flatpak for the app. https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop/issues/1639 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop/issues/1639