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
I intensely hate that a stupid application can modify .bashrc and permanently persist itself.

Sure, in theory, SELinux could prevent this. But seems like an uphill battle if my policies conflict with the distro’s. I’d also have to “absorb” their policies’ mental model first…

>>BobbyT+fL
I tend to think things like .bashrc or .zshrc are bad ideas anyways. Not that you asked but I think the simpler solution is to have those files be owned by root and not writable by the user. You're probably not modifying them that often anyways.