Flatpak: A security nightmare – two years later

Re:Flatpak: A security nightmare – two years later by pjfin123 on Friday October 02, 2020 @09:37AM (#24662438)

How has Snap failed? Snap lets you install apps like Spotify easily on linux and in a security sandbox. Also snap doesn't have the main issue listed in this article of every app needing filesystem access. Snap has the personal-file interface which you need explicit permission to upload a snap to the Snap Store that accesses this interface: https://snapcraft.io/docs/personal-files-interface .

Source: working on a open source snap applications (without the personal-file interface despite being able to install packages into the sandboxed $SNAP_USER_DATA directory): https://github.com/argosopentech/argos-translate

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Flatpak: A security nightmare – two years later by vbernat on Friday October 02, 2020 @10:08AM (#24662747)

Flatpak has portals for the same purpose. Unfortunately, many apps don't support portals yet. The Flatpak for Spotify does not allow access to home, only to the music directory (read-only). So, it's running in a proper sandbox too.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Flatpak: A security nightmare – two years later by MrDresden on Friday October 02, 2020 @10:57AM (#24663288)

I don't use Spotify, but have you tried using Flatseal[0], to modify the folder access of the application?

[0]: https://flathub.org/apps/details/com.github.tchx84.Flatseal

[ Parent | on HN ]