Maybe Canonical will be the next Crowdstrike
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
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.
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
@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
