Flatpak: A security nightmare – two years later

Re:Flatpak: A security nightmare – two years later by qwerty456127 on Friday October 02, 2020 @09:11AM (#24662212)

> They don't need to be put in a special directory to work.

I know but AFIK that's the way that's meant to be done.

> AppImage is the most prevalent implementation of this concept in Linux (and it is indeed great).

Why don't we give FlatPack and Snap up to just use AppImage then? Chances are AppImage also has some cons and is inferior to Flat pack in at least some ways.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Flatpak: A security nightmare – two years later by AnIdiotOnTheNet on Friday October 02, 2020 @09:44AM (#24662508)

In theory Flatpak allows for sharing of dependencies and has sandboxing built in. This comes at the cost of needing special tooling, a repo, and non-portable (portable here meaning you can put the files wherever you want) applications. In practice you're probably better off using Firejail or the like on AppImage if you want the sandboxing anyway, because of things like the issues noted in the article. Snap is like Flatpak but even worse because it is entirely controlled by canonical.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Flatpak: A security nightmare – two years later by srtjstjsj on Friday October 02, 2020 @09:26AM (#24662329)

Anarchy. Steve Jobs / Tike Cook can declare one package format for Mac. No one can do that for Linux. With a single distro leadership can sometimes do it, but there isn't enough funding to solve problems within a single distro.

[ Parent | on HN ]