The title says it all. I would like to know what software you have in a flatpak. If you want to include your reasoning, go ahead.

    • CuttingBoard@sopuli.xyzOP
      6·
      10 months ago

      I just wanted to know. For example: tumbleweed comes with firefox, do people uninstall it and reinstall it in a flatpak? The question comes from curiosity.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
        51·
        10 months ago

        Yes. I removed Firefox and installed the flatpak version because it’s a little more secure.

        EDIT: it might not actually be more secure, but it doesn’t appear to be less secure based on how I read the information in the replies.

          • million@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            10 months ago

            You should probably read the included details if you haven’t and address those points directly. I’d love to know what is wrong about the problems they have described.

            • dino@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              Did you think I was referring to your post? Because otherwise I don’t understand what you are aiming at.

        • million@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          Is that due to flatpak sandboxing?

          Edit: it’s interesting, this repo is saying the opposite, https://github.com/trytomakeyouprivate/Recommended-Flatpak-Apps/blob/main/Apps/Browsers.md

          The Flatpak Sandbox restricts the Browsers abilities to isolate the processes from another, and also valuable internal data like your history or passwords.

          Edit 2: since folks are asking further details are linked in the article. Keep in mind I am not personally making these claims, I am in learn mode just like a lot of other folks.

          From https://seirdy.one/notes/2022/06/12/flatpak-and-web-browsers/:

          When distributing browsers through Flatpak, things get a bit…weird. Nesting sandboxes in Flatpak doesn’t really work, since Flatpak forbids access to user namespaces

          • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
            2·
            10 months ago

            I am not so sure this really establishes that Firefox in a Flatpak is less secure. From the linked bug:

            You lose the namespace isolation, and by extension the chroot, but that’s it. It’s definitely nice to have, but to say it’s “most” of the sandboxing seems a misrepresentation. Note that some distros disable the kernel support for them by default, so that’s what they currently get regardless of Flatpak.

            It might be more accurate to say that some per process isolation features don’t work because flatpak uses them to isolate Firefox from the rest of the system. This could make it easier to smuggle data between processes in Firefox. It reads like a trade off to me and the impact depends on your security model – whether you value interprocess isolation more than isolation between the app and the system.

            Either way, interesting find! I didn’t know some of Firefox’s sandboxing is precluded by the Flatpak sandboxing. I edited my comment to dispell the claim that it’s more secure.

            • million@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              10 months ago

              Yeah as they said it’s complicated, but in an unintuitive way more sandbox of apps can lead to apps being less effective at sandboxing themselves. Which, like you said, can be good bad or neutral depending on your threat model.

              Personally I am leaning towards not using browser in Flatpaks since I trust the browser to sandbox itself. Not the position I started from initially where I would have assumed more sandboxing is a uniformly good thing.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
    171·
    10 months ago

    I use flatpak for virtually everything because sandboxing your applications from each other and from your private data is a great idea to improve your system security. This helps prevent one compromised app from taking actions that affect the rest of your system.

    For example, I have the VLC flatpak and used flatseal to revoke internet access because I only use it to play files. If a file tries to exploit VLC, it will not be able to upload any data or communicate with the attacker’s servers. I revoke any permissions my apps don’t actually need.

    There are a few exceptions though. I run development and administrative tools directly because I do actually want unrestricted access to the system for these apps.

    • Akip@feddit.deEnglish
      1·
      10 months ago

      I would say the comment for mullvad browser just to use librefox is dangerous and wrong, the no script from mullvad browser served me well by exporting it to other browsers even to mobile.

      • Pantherina@feddit.de
        1·
        10 months ago

        There is no Librefox, its Librewolf ;D

        Noscript is an extension that can be installed on all Firefox Desktop Variants, Chromium Desktop, Brave Desktop (and many more Desktop Chromium browsers) as well as all versions of Firefox for Android. Possibly also Kiwix, which is some hacky Desktop Chromium for Android.

  • Lojcs@lemm.ee
    10·
    10 months ago

    The one that causes dependency version conflicts when installed normally

  • zingo@lemmy.ca
    1·
    10 months ago

    “Core apps” are better on baremetal for seamless system integration.

    Just use flatpaks for everything else.