3 ms·
>It is true, but I think you're missing my point. Maybe? What are you envisioning? Some sort of static analysis before a program runs? Explicit opt-in's to wha
by whoknowsidont 2y ago
>It is true, but I think you're missing my point.
Maybe? What are you envisioning? Some sort of static analysis before a program runs? Explicit opt-in's to what a program needs, from the program itself (and only what it needs)?
- ruthmarx 2y agoI'm just talking about respect for convention. The same way on an FHS respecting distro a software should install to FHS paths and not, for example, make a new root level directory. There's a respect for user preferences there. It's not about using technical means to restrict software, but about the OS providing certain mechanisms and there being an expectation for trusted software that it will respect those conventions. That's why I don't consider a jail a solution. It's an extra step the user has to carry out, and I don't think the burden should be on the user if it doesn't have to be. While in one sense it's good security practice to treat every program as malware, most users are not going to do that nor should they have to. A tool like Sandboxie on Windows solves that problem in one sense, but not the actual root of the problem, which is it being more acceptable than it should be to go against user preferences and convention.