3 ms·
It also really bothers me that running a simple utility effectively means I’ve given the developer full access to my system. It’s even worse when commercial so
by BobbyTables2 1y ago
It also really bothers me that running a simple utility effectively means I’ve given the developer full access to my system.
It’s even worse when commercial software wants me to add it’s repo to my package manager for updates… (Who audits post install scripts of RPM, etc!!!)
That being said, I’m also too lazy to run every thing inside its own container — especially for browsers, etc.
Feels too cumbersome that I need some automated CI pipeline just to ensure my DIY containers remain updated.
Also a pain to decide what file/directories the container should have access to.
In principle, I should probably use something like Qubes.
However, the prospect of putting my entire security ins small group of people writing somewhat complicated software with no financial disincentive for shenanigans also bothers me. (I realize this is extremely unfair and their work is quite impressive, but theoretically reality could get in the way)
- integralid 1y agohttps://invisiblethingslab.com/ https://invisiblethingslab.com/ is a company. They have a big vested interest in not doing something shady and wasting years of trust, sinking the company, possibly even risk legal problems.
- AstralStorm 1y agoOn one hand yes, on the other hand, cut and run is a common startup strategy. Just not in the security space. Unfortunately nobody cares about further Linux security, everyone's idea of it is to throw docker and kubernetes at it.
- pabs3 1y agoInvisible Things has been around for a very long time, with a much better Linux security strategy than docker.