[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/g/ - Technology


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: proxy-image.png (20 KB, 1024x683)
20 KB
20 KB PNG
whats the downside of running a web browser as a flatpak other than the overhead of having flatpaks installed?

Isnt running a browser in a sandbox just better?
>>
Chromium and Firefox already have their own sandboxing measures. Apparently flatpak actually prevents these from working properly, not sure if this is still up2date knowledge (i think i read about it in like 2020).
>>
>>107252317
Yes it still happens
>>
>>107252317
>>107252362
>Apparently flatpak actually prevents these from working properly

it may weaken the browsers built in sandbox slightly, but its still in the flatpak sandbox and therefore still more secure unless it can ge tthrough both sandboxes
>>
How does flatpak weaken Firefox's own sandbox?
>>
>>107252498
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1756236
>>
>>107252434
looked into this more deeply and apparently I am wrong. flathub is actually less secure when it comes to things like namespace escapes in rendering. RIP
>>
>>107252528
Oh
Danke
>>
>>107252954
My pleasure, it's kinda old but still relevant



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.