On 6/5/23 16:35, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 02:09:58 PM -0400, Steve Grubb > <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Yes. And how does it's security model work? > > The security model is that the application is assumed to be compromised > by malicious input and is trying to do evil things to the host system, > like read your home directory and send copies of your files to a > ransomware operator or nation state. Linux namespaces plus seccomp > filters are used to confine applications to prevent them from messing > with the host system, or reading your personal files, etc. > > It's great in theory. Problem is, as a transition measure to encourage > developers to adopt Flatpak, you can give your application extra > permissions that totally break the security model, and this is > extremely common in practice. You should only trust applications that > don't do this, but most apps do. See [1] for a discussion of this. > > [1] > https://theevilskeleton.gitlab.io/2023/05/11/overview-of-flatpaks-permission-models.html > > There are different degrees of badness. E.g. Epiphany, which I > maintain, has a sandbox hole that allows it to read and write your > Downloads directory, and another hole that allows it to talk to > Geoclue. These are both unacceptable, but certainly not as bad as > allowing read/write access to the user's home directory or root > filesystem, which many apps actually do. > > Flatpak could be pretty darn secure, but only if we stop allowing this, > and I fear that would likely result in applications abandoning the > platform. This is a major threat IMO. I'd love to see more effort > towards improving our portals so that applications don't need to use > static permissions anymore. We need to really clamp down on this so > that users can trust the Flatpak ecosystem. > >> What is the root of trust? > > I think there is no root. A GPG key is provided when installing a > runtime or application. > >> Are they signed by a Fedora key that I already >> have? > > Nope (except presumably for Fedora Flatpaks). > >> How can we verify it's integrity? > > I think the GPG keys are trust-on-first-use. > >> Once installed, how do I verify it's >> integrity? How do I check if anything has been modified? > > I don't know. Non-Fedora Flatpaks are stored using ostree, so people > familiar with ostree would be able to answer this question. Fedora > Flatpaks are OCI containers, so people familiar with OCI containers > would know about that. > > ostree is a "git for binaries" and you can detect normal non-malicious > modification by looking at the history, e.g. `flatpak remote-info --log > flathub org.gnome.Platform//44`; however, this only tells you when > something changed, not what actually changed. > >> Does it integrate >> well with SE Linux, > > No. selinux is entirely outside the Flatpak security model because > Flatpak is a cross-distro tool and selinux is not used outside Fedora > and Red Hat distros. Fedora could, of course ship its own SELinux policy for Flatpak (and I recommend this), but Flatpak will not (and cannot reasonably be expected to) integrate with SELinux natively. >> IMA, fapolicyd, or openscap? > > I'm not familiar with these technologies, but I think the answer is: no. > >> On a locked down system, are >> there sysctls that I have undo such as user namespaces? > > Technically, Flatpak can work without user namespaces, but this is a > legacy configuration and it only works if bubblewrap (/usr/bin/bwrap) > is built to use suid root instead of user namespaces, which is not > recommend and which we do not do in Fedora. (I think Debian maybe still > does this?) So it will surely break if you disable user namespaces, but > you might be able to make it work by rebuilding your own bubblewrap > instead of using Fedora's. > > The Flatpak sandbox does not attempt to guard against kernel bugs -- it > can't, because it has to allow access to all syscalls that applications > might reasonably want to use -- so if you don't trust the kernel to be > secure (including user namespaces), Flatpak is not the tool for you. Could Flatpak be changed to use e.g. KVM + crosvm for isolation? Flatpak does (via seccomp) prevent applications from creating _new_ user namespaces. -- Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
