Permissions issues with Flatpak package
Hi! I've come across two issues in the official Flatpak package related to permissions:
The current package has
filesystems=host
. This is extremely insecure, as it gives the application unrestricted access to the entire filesystem, and negates most of the security benefits of the sandbox which Flatpak uses. This includes escaping out of the sandbox and completely highjacking user session, and complete access any sensitive material on the user's profile. I've added a local override to not have this permission, and it works fine, so I hope you'll be able to patch this upstream.The current package lacks the
devices=all
. Without this permission, 1Password cannot access a 2FA security key, so finishing logging in is impossible when using 2FA. I've added this permission as a local override and 2FA worked fine. This particular permission is a bit too wide-encompassing (since it includes cameras and other devices), but there's not other permission that's more granular that covers this scenario. There's ongoing discussion for such a thing (I know Firefox in particular would like to adopt such a thing), but it's just not there yet.
Oh, while reporting this, I also noticed the Flatpak does not have a version defined:
~ ➜ flatpak list --app Name Application ID Version Branch Origin Installation Discord com.discordapp.Discord 0.0.16 stable flathub system Flatseal com.github.tchx84.Flatseal 1.7.4 stable flathub system OnePassword com.onepassword.OnePassword stable onepassword-origin system Skype com.skype.Client 8.77.0.97 stable flathub system
1Password Version: stable (version missing)
Extension Version: n/a
OS Version: Flatpak 1.12.2
Comments
-
For the second item, you might want to follow this Flatpak issue: https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/2764
0 -
Hello, @WhyNotHugo !
I've filed all three of these. Since all of them seem relatively easy, I'll see if I can get someone on them as soon as possible. Not likely for the release this week, but maybe next week.
0 -
Thanks for the follow up!
0 -
On behalf of Savanni, you're very welcome @WhyNotHugo!
0 -
Sad, to see this that the permission model did not change at all after more than 4 months :(
0 -
Hey, @sh1bumi. I'm sorry you're still having trouble. Could you elaborate on what you're seeing? The first two issues were resolved a few months ago on our side, leaving only the version number issue that we had some complications with. If you're not seeing that to be the case, though, I'd love to get one of our Linux folks to take another look here.
ref: dev/core/core#10720
ref: dev/core/core#10721
ref: dev/core/core#107220