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.
Sandboxing and security are very much features of Flatpak, even if they don’t advertise those to end users. Unfortunately, of the few desktop native applications Linux supports, very few of them actually work right when you sandbox them properly, so they’re underused. Any attempt at sandboxing also sets off the “they’re taking away MY FREEDOM” people on Linux forums, which doesn’t help Flatpak gain any kind of popularity.
A proper packaged Flatpak app should have the same level of security as an application you run in Firejail (or Docker, for that matter). All of this stuff works through the same APIs. Developers just have to enable them for their application.
Even popular Flatpaks actually don’t allow path escapes unless you’ve manually disabled the sandbox with flatseal. Unfortunately, very few Linux developers understand the concept of least privilege, and lots of Linux code has been written with the expectation that all paths are readable and/or writeable, so packagers just disable the security rather than alter the code.
You can plainly see how effective the sandbox will be based on your software store of choice. You can also restrict applications after installation, though that’ll probably break stuff.
It’s pretty funny how Snap manages to provide more security than Flatpak despite being such an objectively worse solution in almost all other aspects.
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.
Sandboxing and security are very much features of Flatpak, even if they don’t advertise those to end users. Unfortunately, of the few desktop native applications Linux supports, very few of them actually work right when you sandbox them properly, so they’re underused. Any attempt at sandboxing also sets off the “they’re taking away MY FREEDOM” people on Linux forums, which doesn’t help Flatpak gain any kind of popularity.
A proper packaged Flatpak app should have the same level of security as an application you run in Firejail (or Docker, for that matter). All of this stuff works through the same APIs. Developers just have to enable them for their application.
Even popular Flatpaks actually don’t allow path escapes unless you’ve manually disabled the sandbox with flatseal. Unfortunately, very few Linux developers understand the concept of least privilege, and lots of Linux code has been written with the expectation that all paths are readable and/or writeable, so packagers just disable the security rather than alter the code.
You can plainly see how effective the sandbox will be based on your software store of choice. You can also restrict applications after installation, though that’ll probably break stuff.
It’s pretty funny how Snap manages to provide more security than Flatpak despite being such an objectively worse solution in almost all other aspects.