this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
18 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

66264 readers
774 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] novafunc@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Certainly an interesting vulnerability, but one you shouldn't worry about.

If you do really care about sandbox security, the first thing I would recommend doing is globally blocking filesystem access to anywhere in your $HOME that runs script code, such as:

  • bash files like ~/.bashrc and ~/.bash_profile
  • ~/.local/bin and ~/bin
  • ~/.ssh

I have a script that I use to control flatpak overrides and I do something like this:

# paths to block
GLOBAL_RESTRICTION_PATHS=(
    "~/.bash_logout"
    "~/.bash_profile"
    "~/.bashrc"
    "~/.profile"
    "~/.ssh"
    "~/.zshenv"
        "xdg-config/zsh"
    "~/.local/bin"
    "xdg-config/systemd"
)

# globally block these paths
for path in "${GLOBAL_RESTRICTION_PATHS[@]}"; do
    flatpak --user override --nofilesystem="$path"
done

# but allow some apps like text editors to access them
for path in "${GLOBAL_RESTRICTION_PATHS[@]}"; do
    flatpak --user override --filesystem="$path" org.gnome.TextEditor
done
[–] mmmm@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wondering why they stopped replying. One would imagine they would have a strong and well defined process for security reports, but it just seems like they sad "meh"

[–] OctopusNemeses@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

KDE has a history of doing that. Plasma widgets are a gaping security hole. You can poke a hole through root. I'm pretty sure you can traverse up the JS object hierarchy from a widget and modify the whole desktop in anyway you want. At least at some point this was possible. A widget can and has deadlocked plasmashell from even loading. Their response was basically "works as intended" and closed the issue.

[–] Zamundaaa@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Plasma widgets are a gaping security hole.

Aka "thing that isn't sandboxed, never has been sandboxed, and never has been claimed to be sandboxed, is in fact not sandboxed". Just like any app from your distro repositories, or appimages, or games in Steam... Or even most Flatpaks by default for that matter.

Widgets being sandboxed would be cool and is a long term goal (which is way easier said than done!), but don't present them not being sandboxed as some irresponsible thing someone does because they don't care. Your expectations of security simply are simply completely misplaced.

[–] OctopusNemeses@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

That doesn't matter from a user perspective. You can't expect the layman to know how dangerous a simple widget is.

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org -1 points 1 day ago

KDE has a history of doing that. Plasma widgets are a gaping security hole.

OMG, did they copy Microsoft's "Active Desktop"? Sounds like this exactly.