Strictly sandboxed implies only the following:
share: ipc
socket: wayland+fallback-x11 or only wayland
device: dri
verified: true
Apps like https://github.com/flathub/io.github.Lluciocc.Shapebound would qualify but I need to check how many more would. I think even if the count is low during init it would make sense to create it just to maybe incentivise people in having strict permissions, assuming someone ships it.
The main reason I want it, is that it allows us to grossly bypass a number of concerns around build sources, packaging methods, safety etc. as an app with such permissions is essentially neutered. Eg. even if someone reuses a .deb built in their basement the permission combination above would make concerns around safety etc. easier to cope with.
Also lately I see something getting compromised each day...
We are already opening the repo and mutating the contents so this should be a matter of parsing the metadata and the classification code. It would not need the backend API.
Strictly sandboxed implies only the following:
share: ipc
socket: wayland+fallback-x11 or only wayland
device: dri
verified: true
Apps like https://github.com/flathub/io.github.Lluciocc.Shapebound would qualify but I need to check how many more would. I think even if the count is low during init it would make sense to create it just to maybe incentivise people in having strict permissions, assuming someone ships it.
The main reason I want it, is that it allows us to grossly bypass a number of concerns around build sources, packaging methods, safety etc. as an app with such permissions is essentially neutered. Eg. even if someone reuses a .deb built in their basement the permission combination above would make concerns around safety etc. easier to cope with.
Also lately I see something getting compromised each day...
We are already opening the repo and mutating the contents so this should be a matter of parsing the metadata and the classification code. It would not need the backend API.