I see that it can be slower because of having all the dependencies included with the flatpak itself instead of relying solely on whats installed on the system. I read that this means it isolates or sandboxes itself from the rest of the system.

Does this not mean that it can't infect the rest of the system even if it had malware?

I have seen people say that it isnt good for security because sometimes they force you to use a specific version of certain dependencies that often times are outdated but I'm wondering why that would matter if it was truly sandboxed and isolated.

Do they mean that installing flatpak itself is a security risk or that also specific flatpaks can be security risks themselves?

  • cmgvd3lw@discuss.tchncs.de
    ·
    13 days ago

    Go to flathub and check the permission of the application that you want to install. Normally they won't have access to root directory, but could access your home dir. If they had any malicious intent, they could mess with your personal files.
    I think there is another application that can restrict the permission scope on flathub itself.

  • 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de
    ·
    13 days ago

    I see that it can be slower because of having all the dependencies included with the flatpak itself instead of relying solely on whats installed on the system.

    No. Packing its own libraries wouldn’t make it slower. If anything it would be the extra access checks added by the sandbox (which is optional FWIW, apps don’t have to use it). I haven’t ever used Flatpak but I would assume the sandbox impact is minimal if at all noticeable.

    • Atemu@lemmy.ml
      ·
      12 days ago

      There aren't any "extra access checks" to my knowledge. It's just the same regular access checks applied to a different set of circumstances.

  • Xylight@lemdro.id
    ·
    13 days ago

    It's not securely sandboxed like a Qube, but apps can have their permission to access files and such restricted. Malware can escape the sandbox, or apps may come with very permissive permissions.

  • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
    ·
    13 days ago

    There are vulnerabilities found in Flatpak's sandboxing all the time so it's pretty much broken. The opening speed on HDD systems is really really bad too. That's why I only use Flatpak to install software that's not available in my distro's repos. Though I use Arch (btw) so distro packages being old isn't an issue for me.

      • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
        ·
        12 days ago

        It's still better than no sandbox at all, isn't it?

        I guess so.

        And who installs their OS on an HDD in 2024?

        Those who earn less than $5k a month (aka 80+% of people in the world).

  • moreeni@lemm.ee
    ·
    11 days ago

    Flatpak does NOT provide sandboxing. It containerises your applications. It's better for permission management but by no means makes the system invulnerable to malware.

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.ml
    ·
    12 days ago

    I don't think speed is an issue. They're larger but all software loads dependencies from disk, flatpaks just have them bundled into a different location.

    Snap did have some loading time issues but in terms of performance, I don't think there was much measurable difference.