Skip to main content

As far as I can tell, Wayland's security model seems to be "users doing stuff means they could do bad stuff!"

reshared this

in reply to silverwizard

GNU Too
GNU Too
• •
make experience working in the corporate world is that is what the lawyers tell us we have to do.
Unknown parent

silverwizard
silverwizard
•
@argv minus one so the issue with "apps might do weird things" but that restricts privileged users. We shouldn't protect people from having fun
@argv minus one

GNU Too reshared this.

Unknown parent

Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan
• •
@Sarah Brown @silverwizard I'm less familiar with it, so it only came second to my mind!
@Sarah Brown @silverwizard
Unknown parent

silverwizard
silverwizard
•

@argv minus one so I mean, the permission system existing means the app could edit it

Apps can do anything, that's their point

@argv minus one
Unknown parent

silverwizard
silverwizard
•
@argv minus one how do you stop the OS from being a playpen or make screenreaders work?
@argv minus one
Unknown parent

silverwizard
silverwizard
•
@argv minus one so you envision a blind user navigating a sprawling permission structure before setting up accessibility?
@argv minus one
Unknown parent

silverwizard
silverwizard
•

@argv minus one The issue is that Wayland just bans them outrightly

But if you need permissions for them, fine, but if they are able to self-declare then you can use that to bootstrap a perm bypass.

This system you envision is just a tool to annoy people with *no value*

@argv minus one
in reply to silverwizard

ð’€­ð’‚—ð’†  ENKI ][e
ð’€­ð’‚—ð’†  ENKI ][e
• •
this is an excellent description of my least favorite kind of security thinking, thank you
⇧