zlacker

>>natebc+(OP)
I am running a lot of tools inside sandbox now for exactly this reason. The damage is confined to the directory I'm running that tool in.

There is no reason for a tool to implicitly access my mounted cloud drive directory and browser cookies data.

>>ashish+q9
MacOS has been getting a lot of flak recently for (correct) UI reasons, but I honestly feel like they're the closest to the money with granular app permissions.

Linux people are very resistant to this, but the future is going to be sandboxed iOS style apps. Not because OS vendors want to control what apps do, but because users do. If the FOSS community continues to ignore proper security sandboxing and distribution of end user applications, then it will just end up entirely centralised in one of the big tech companies, as it already is on iOS and macOS by Apple.

>>troad+9b
Sand-boxing such as in Snap and Flatpak?

>>symaxi+Fb
Snap and Flatpak do both sandboxing and package management.

You can use the underlying sandboxing with bwrap. A good alternative is firejail. They are quite easy to use.

I prefer to centralize package management to my distro, but I value their sandboxing efforts.

Personally, I think it's time to take sandboxing seriously. Supply chain attacks keep happening. Defense is depth is the way.