A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 2.97K Posts
- 74.6K Comments
- Modlog
Flatpak doesnt let the browser use its normal sandboxing for process isolation using user namespaces. Read more here or search on the web for “flatpak weaken browser security”: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/security-problems-with-flatpak-browsers-firefox-chromium-bubblejail-seccomp-user-namespaces/121109/5
That’s a lot to unpack there (ba-dum-ts!). So Firefox has a specific Flatpak version that has a bigger attack surface? Or am I getting it wrong? A good bit of it flew over my head TBH.
Basically, Flatpak stops Firefox from using its normal security measures for isolation. Librewolf (a fork of Firefox) has the same problems resulting from Flatpak.