"[GNU/]Linux being secure is a common misconception in the security and privacy realm."
"[GNU/]Linux being secure is a common misconception in the security and privacy realm."
"[GNU/]Linux being secure is a common misconception in the security and privacy realm."
https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux.html
"[GNU/]Linux is thought to be secure primarily because of its source model, popular usage in servers, small userbase and confusion about its security features. This article is intended to debunk these misunderstandings".
Based on this, one should try to do as much as possible on a GrapheneOS device
You're viewing a single thread.
First thing I read and it's not even true.
Flatpak's permissions are also far too broad to be meaningful. For example, many applications come with the filesystem=home or filesystem=host permissions, which grant read-write access to the user's home directory
You can absolutely have more narrow permissions
For example, by default, Firefox only has read/write access to xdg-download and mpv only has read access to host and write access to xdg-pictures (to save screenshots). Discord by default only has read access to xdg-videos and xdg-pictures and write access to xdg-download.
I'm not even going to waste time reading the rest...
Many applications come with home and host permissions
This is a true statement? As long as they are not rewritten partly to use portals, many especially big applications need that.
You're correct, but just like you said, many applications need that.
If I install LibreOffice on Windows or Android, it'll also have access to all my files. I really don't see how that makes Linux more insecure.
Sure, ideally it would use portals, I just don't like the attitude of the blog post.
Addressing concerns or areas for improvement, and suggesting users solutions like installing Flatseal, would be far more constructive. Even better would be submitting pull requests to enhance security themselves, since they seem to know so much about it. Instead, they're just spreading FUD and complaining about small problems or nonsensical arguments like Windows adopting rust. Since when Rust is more used on Windows than Linux?
For instance, the blog post mentions Xorg's security concerns but overlooks mentioning Xorg's alternative Wayland, the default in most distributions when using KDE Plasma or Gnome, which are also the most used.
If security is so important, there are distros like Qubes OS, but most users don't need that level of paranoia, specially if it ruins workflow, performance and productivity
Yes agree on that. Linux needs more standardization.
It is big problem, because it lacks the structure somehow. If there is easy tooling for app development, as Flatpaks with all the modern security practices (safe language, portals, modern GUI, Wayland, Accessibility APIs) then developers could easily follow these rules and create good apps more easily.
Currently app development is not easy and thus also very random.
Yes, you can have more narrow permissions, and the examples you listed are all valid and examples of apps with sensible permissions.
But since app developers can choose their apps permissions on their own, many apps have broad permissions like the access to the entire filesystem.
Some examples listed in the post:
GIMP, Gedit, VLC, Libreoffice, Audacity, VSCode, Dropbox and Skype
All of these have either the
filesystem=homeorfilesystem=hostpermission, giving the app acess to basically everything and compromising security.Flatpaks can have more narrow permissions but aren't required to have narrow permissions. The post's statement that many applications have broad permissions remains true.