Essay defends Flatpak sandbox against claims it is insecure
Original title: A response to claims about flatpak being insecure
The author says statically permissioned Flathub apps reflect insecure applications and immature portals, not a failed sandbox.
A blog post responds to articles calling Flatpak a security nightmare. It argues that cherry-picked unconfined or statically permissioned apps show insecure applications and incomplete APIs, not that Flatpak fails as a sandbox. It cites fractureiser malware as software that would fail inside the default PrismLauncher Flatpak sandbox. The piece urges better portals rather than abandoning Flatpak.
- Flatpak, released in 2015, applies server container ideas to the Linux desktop.
- The author says fractureiser hardcodes ~/.config and would fail in the default PrismLauncher sandbox.
- Files written only inside the sandbox land on a tmpfs wiped on restart.
- Products
- FlatpakPrismLauncher
- Malware
- fractureiser
- Organizations
- Flathub
From the original article
6 min read at oro.gayFor over 20 years, Linux has been used everywhere, from servers to embedded devices. One area it has been lacking in, however, is the desktop space. Windows and macOS have constantly been keeping Linux out of the market, with gaming primarily being a Windows thing and content creators utilizing macOS.
By oro.gay via juliethefoxcoon · oro.gay
A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.