I don't think the comparison with Canonical works here, because Canonical is not the one who creates / updates the packages. Plus the Snap packages are sandboxed and do not have root access.
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
2 points (52.2% liked)
Linux
47923 readers
1040 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
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Snap packages do a very poor job of sandboxing. Also snapd runs as root as in needs extra privileges to mount the loopback devices
Off course the package manager runs as root. I meant the packages itself does not. I mean every package manager for your system, including Flatpak, Apt, Pacman requires root. Snap packages are better sandboxed (on Ubuntu) than Flatpak or any other system packages.
Look, I don't like Snaps and they were one of the reasons why I switched away from Ubuntu after 13 years. But your argumentation doesn't work for me. If any of the applications updates a bad update, then it wouldn't make the system unbootable. Crowdstrike software on the other hand are closed source and they had privileges to do everything on your system, as it was installed as Kernel level access program. None of this is true for Snap packages that are auto updated, nor is it true for Flatpak packages.
I am not saying nothing can happen, but because Snap packages are updating itself automatically does not equal Canonical = Crowdstrike. Most packages are not even packaged up by Canonical.
Edit: I think if you continue with this narrative, it would really hurt Linux adoption for no reason. Because people not familiar would say Ubuntu=Linux=Crowdstrike. They don't even need to install into Crowdstrike to get a strike, they just need to use the most popular Linux distribution Ubuntu. I mean this is what you are basically suggesting.
Well flatpak and podman don't need root. They run as the local user.
However agree with you on your point about Crowdstrike. I just think that chances are we will see plenty more of bad updates that break things
Snap packages are better sandboxed (on Ubuntu) than Flatpak or any other system packages.
Source?
System packages already use apparmor, i don't see a reason they could not be as sandboxed as snap, and i am not aware of a reason that flatpak has a worst sandbox.
I understand that people feel strongly about Snaps, but I don't know about saying that they're a security vulnerability on the basis of offering automatic updates.
@possiblylinux127
The idea of Snap is good, but the implementation is bad and slow. I prefer to use distro's package manager or flatpack.
I like podman and flatpak
@possiblylinux127 ELI5 how isn't this an attack vector
Bad update
It isn't a update it is inconfidence