Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> You install it, at worst it will cryptomine that is it.

Last time I looked, snaps still had access to the X server. They were therefore perfectly capable of logging and inserting keystrokes, capturing whatever sensitive information is on screen, etc. Has this changed?

I don't think Wayland would solve this, because even if Ubuntu switches to Wayland, variants like Xubuntu (which inherit snap from the base distribution) still use Xorg.

This sort of thing is often overlooked when we talk about linux sandboxing technologies. People see the word "sandbox" and assume safety, but the fact is that most of these sandboxes are leaky in one way or another. Does it protect X11 abuse? DBus abuse? Shared memory? Microphone access? Device node access? The list is long, and the leaks are different in each of the sandboxes.



You are right, there are still issues and vulnerabilities present with using X. That is the case with every distribution mechanism ever in existence.

You would have to be a complete numpty to download and install such a thing as it wouldn't come from anything with first party support. Enough of a numpty that you shouldn't be trusted with root to begin with.

Wouldn't be surprised if this specific thing was scanned for and flagged with their static analysis tool. It seems like something that would be flagged.

> DBus abuse?

When I added the dbus slot for the firefox snap, Canonical wouldn't push to the store until it was manually reviewed. So yes, asking for new permissions/unusual permissions would probably need review.


Note that it should be possible for X server to pretend there is no other client connected to a particular program and AFAIK it already does this for remotely connected clients. Snaps could (if they're not doing this already) use this functionality to isolate themselves from the rest of the system.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: