• Are you using Flatpaks?
  • Are you trusting Flathub?
  • Do you bother about the sandboxing and security?
    • YES. I don’t understand this delusion people keep perpetuating. Flatpak has a MILD form of container sandboxing. For a real security sandbox we have Firejails or Bubble wrap.

      Flatpak is, at it’s core, a software development and distribution packaging format. NOT a security implementation.

    • In addition to own new code, bundled copies of libraries in packages introduces net new attack surface which isn’t patched via the regular distribution security patch process. The image decoding lib that allows remote code execution now exists in flatpaks independently from the one in /lib. Every flatpak vendor that contains it has to build and ship their own patched version of it. This is even more valid for any other libraries flatpaks include that don’t exist on the system. The most widely used Linux OSes come with security patching processes, expectations and sometimes guarantees. This new attack surface breaks those and the solution is security sandboxing. This approach has been proven in mobile app packaging and distribution systems. Android is a great example where apps are not trusted by default and vulnerable ones rarely cause collateral damage on otherwise up-to-date Android systems. This is an objective problem with the out-of-band distribution model allowed by flatpak and snap or any similar system, whether you care about it or not personally. It’s a well understood tradeoff in software development. It has to be addressed as adoption grows or we risk reducing Linux security to the levels of Windows where apps regularly bundle dependencies with no sandboxing whatsoever.

  • Yes, I’m using flatpaks.

    Yes, I’m trusting flathub. LOL about people repackaging applications. Wait until they find out the Linux distro they use is a collection of software repackaged by 3rd parties. 😂

    Userland hasn’t had any concept of security, so it’s nice people are trying to fix it.

    • This is generally good advice. Would you run the program without a sandbox? No? Then you probably shouldn’t run it inside a sandbox either.
      You can never be sure that the program isn’t using a flaw in the sandbox to break out or is just piggybacking onto a whitelisted action that is required for the program’s basic functionality.

      And if some program requires r/w for your entire home directory and network access then you might as well not use a sandbox in the first place because it can already do everything useful that it needs to do.

  • There is a subset of only verified apps, if you want to be secure. But then you lack trustworthy unofficial apps like VLC.

    flatpak remote-delete flathub ; flatpak remote-add --subset=verified flathub https://dl.flathub.org/repo/flathub.flatpakrepo
    

    Also until every app uses Portals, and until we have a share portal, most apps are basically unrestricted if you compare it to Android.

  • I’m mostly using Flatpaks on Tumbleweed, I only use the package manager if I can’t find a Flatpak version. Reason for that is that with Flatpak I can precisely know what I manually installed, as Tumbleweed lacks a proper easy way of getting a list of user installed packages

    • It means you can run apps without trusting their developer will full access to your computer and your files.

      Just like on mobile, you only allow apps to access what you know they need. Nothing more.

        •  redd   ( @redd@discuss.tchncs.de ) OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Think about service providers (government, banking, messaging, streaming, gaming). To participate in life we might depend on some of their services but don’t fully trust these parties. Flatpak is not secure/sandboxed enough to run untrusted apps. Meanwhile on Android the situation looks much better.