Google-Apps
Hauptmenü

"SECURITY FOR THE SECURITY GODS! SANDBOXING FOR THE SANDBOXING THRONE"

7 Comments -

1 – 7 of 7
Blogger ocrete said...

Most of the Videos problem would be fixed by running it inside Flatpak!|

21 July 2017 at 19:34

Blogger Bastien Nocera said...

> Most of the Videos problem would be fixed by running it inside Flatpak!

In Flatpak, when sandboxed, a crafted video file could delete all of your video library, or send private videos through the network. Flatpak would be mitigation, not a fix. Ideally, metadata extraction and the whole video decoding pipeline would happen in even more restricted environments, similarly to Web Browsers having network, parsing and display in separate processes. But, yes, certainly better than non-sandboxed!

21 July 2017 at 20:26

Blogger Unknown said...

I am going to move gnome-photos away from gdk-pixbuf over the next few months / releases. As a result, I'd just repeat my suggestion that we find a way to consolidate GIMP's and GEGL's codecs in a single library, and a better API for decoding image files into GeglBuffers.

22 July 2017 at 02:28

Blogger stuaxo said...

Great :)

I noticed in Ubuntu a while back that PDF thumbnailing was disabled by SE policy. I hope that more thumbnailers will be enabled now they are in a sandbox.

23 July 2017 at 13:16

Blogger Bastien Nocera said...

> I am going to move gnome-photos away from gdk-pixbuf over the next few months / releases.
> As a result, I'd just repeat my suggestion that we find a way to consolidate GIMP's and GEGL's
> codecs in a single library, and a better API for decoding image files into GeglBuffers.

Repeating suggestions ain't going to make code magically appear. I have no idea what this code would look like but maybe you have a better idea mapped out.

24 July 2017 at 12:26

Blogger Bastien Nocera said...

> I noticed in Ubuntu a while back that PDF thumbnailing was disabled by SE policy. I hope that more
> thumbnailers will be enabled now they are in a sandbox.

Didn't know Ubuntu used SELinux, maybe you mean AppArmor. Depending on the rule, this would only close down a particular class of vulnerabilities. It also requires applying this rule to specific binaries, rather than relying on the way they're instantiated.

24 July 2017 at 12:30

Blogger Bastien Nocera said...

> Repeating suggestions ain't going to make code magically appear. I have no
> idea what this code would look like but maybe you have a better idea mapped out.

Looks like I missed the fact that this was about GIMP and GEGL's loaders, and not gdk-pixbuf. In both cases, the attack surface is much lower than gdk-pixbuf's which is used in hundreds of apps to read untrusted data, or data generated from untrusted data (such as thumbnails).

I'd still recommend writing the code as a way to move the problem forward though ;)

24 July 2017 at 14:55

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

This blog does not allow anonymous comments.

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot