Skip to main content


Was anybody else just burned by the Tor Browser flatpak?


This entry was edited (1 month ago)
in reply to nikqwxq550

😬

Could be worth sharing this around so more people are aware of it. !privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com and !opensource@programming.dev maybe? I can cross post it myself, but I'm not as familiar with the topic to respond to comments/questions

This entry was edited (1 month ago)

don't like this

in reply to Otter

in reply to nikqwxq550

Thanks!

I think it's still helpful for people that primarily use the subscribed feed, in case they are subscribed to !linux@lemmy.ml, but not !privacy@lemmy.ml

in reply to nikqwxq550

yeah that's a pretty huge yikes.
in reply to nikqwxq550

People that use flatpaks for Tor deserve to get pwned.
in reply to nikqwxq550

I think Tor Project is implementing a better version of Linux package. The current Flatpak one is more of a Python wrapper to download the browser rather than an actual browser. It was developed by an independent open source developer later took over by Tor Project since it was very popular. Hopefully it will be fixed in future.
in reply to nikqwxq550

What are the benefits of flatpacks? Like why not just install the actual Tor browser on your system? The one that is released and maintained by The Tor Project?


[edit]Looks like the Tor Project does support this flatpack. Im a silly goose.

This entry was edited (1 month ago)
in reply to 9tr6gyp3

flatpaks are supposed to be cross-distro. Maintainers only have one package to look after instead of several

Edit: autocorrect got me

This entry was edited (1 month ago)
in reply to traches

And they give you more control over the permissions that you give the application; packages from apt, yay, etc. get full filesystem access by default even if they contain a bug or malicious code, flatpaks can be walled off by you very well.
in reply to Fonzie!

Not to mention:
* better isolation between apps, no dependency conflicts
* ability to rollback to previous versions
* easily set environment variables and other launch options persistently
* transactional updates so if something weird happens during an update, the flatpak won't be left in a corrupted state
in reply to nikqwxq550

I don't understand the hate for flatpak. I wouldn't even be on Linux if it wasn't for flatpaks. I tried to switch many times over the years and it was such a PITA. With flatpaks I made the switch about a year ago and it finally stuck. Even got my wife to switch.
in reply to superglue

There are quite a few reasons to avoid flatpaks tbh.

  • You have no control over the dependencies. A flatpack can include a very old dependency and there is nothing you can do about it. You are at the mercy of the developer.
  • Many Flatpak applications available on flathub are not effectively sandboxed by default. Do not rely on the provided process isolation without first reviewing the related flatpak permission manifest for common sandbox escape issues.
  • Running untrusted code is never safe; sandboxing cannot change this. It can be a false sense of security.
  • It is generally not a good idea to run unattended updates via systemd, as the applications can get new permissions without the user aware of the changes. See this blogpost for examples
  • Flatpak does not run on the linux-hardened kernel unless you do additional kernel modifications that could have negative security implications.
This entry was edited (1 month ago)
in reply to 9tr6gyp3

Sure, but I came from Windows. Is the security situation better over there? Flatpaks just work. I only install verified flatpaks, and I remove most permissions with flatseal before even launching it.
in reply to superglue

If your distro doesn't work unless you use Flatpaks, then stick to flatpaks ig. Its your system.
This entry was edited (1 month ago)
in reply to 9tr6gyp3

Most of those points are true for non flatpak things as well though.
in reply to JackbyDev

Not entirely true. There is other sandbox software out there (such as firejail, distrobox, docker, chroot, any VM products, etc) although they should also be cautious about claiming to be more secure. Flatpak, however, is not considered a sandbox by some.
This entry was edited (1 month ago)
in reply to nikqwxq550

  • ability to rollback to previous versions


I think apt handles this, as well, no?

All the other reasons are very valid, though!
Especially the transactional updates!

in reply to Fonzie!

Technically rollbacks are possible using regular packages, but in practice multiple packages will share dependencies and prevent you from downgrading just one of them. This is why it's important that Flatpaks isolate dependencies between apps.
in reply to nikqwxq550

It has been fixed for a while for new installs, bit I agree, there should have been some kind of notification, that manual intervention is required. It was even mentioned in the bug report, so I don’t know why the dev neglected to implement the notification
in reply to unskilled5117

It sounds as though you were aware of this bug already. How did you find out? Did you notice it yourself or was there a notification somewhere?
in reply to nikqwxq550

Ah sry, i just read through the bug report to get a grasp of the timeline.
in reply to nikqwxq550

Flatpaks have always been really buggy for me. Most of them require at least some amount of tinkering in flatseal to get them running properly, others require some amount of specialized care. I find if you need something running properly and cannot afford hidden bugs then it's best to try to get something made for your distro if possible.
in reply to fubbernuckin

I've had the opposite experience, and started using Flatpaks after running into dependency conflicts once or twice when updating my system. Though I admit I've run into bugs with Flatpaks as well, just nothing as painful as a dependency conflict.
in reply to nikqwxq550

Probably depends on distro i guess. I use manjaro and all the official packages are really clean on my system, but as soon as an aur package fails to build then the pain begins.
in reply to nikqwxq550

On the face of it, that is a massive own goal. TOR project surely has a fediverse account or a blog or something to announce these things. This should be common knowledge.
in reply to Leraje

in reply to nikqwxq550

No, no, I'm saying it should have been reported there and I don't get why they didn't share it.
in reply to Leraje

Ah my mistake, yes a social media post or blog post from them would have been nice
This entry was edited (1 month ago)
in reply to nikqwxq550

I'm not a Tor user, so please forgive my ignorance. Why would you say the browser being outdated means you were being tracked?
in reply to chunkystyles

It's impossible to know for sure whether you are tracked or not, but even the most basic fingerprinting mechanisms check browser version, and Reddit has advanced fingerprinting mechanisms to detect ban evasion. Couple that with the fact that 90% of my searches led me to Reddit, and it's easy to conclude that Reddit correlated all my visits using my fingerprint, and thus has a history of all the things I have searched and been interested in for the past year, and sold that to Google. And Google has enough data on me from back when I used to use Google services, that they were probably able to link that activity to my real identity.
in reply to nikqwxq550

I downloaded the tor browser binary which runs standalone. Why does it need to be a flatpak?
in reply to conicalscientist

It doesn't have to be, but if all Linux apps were standalone binaries, installing apps would be a PITA. Flatpaks have better integration with the desktop environment (like automatically handling desktop shortcuts), can share runtimes to save space, have a standardized way of handling permissions and launch options, etc. The Linux world is moving towards flatpaks for many reasons, and the Tor Browser flatpak is marked as official from the Tor Project. Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect it to work, and to get some sort of notification if it breaks?
in reply to conicalscientist

Then it's not clear what you were trying to say. Does it have to be a flatpak? No. It also doesn't have to be a standalone binary. It's up to the Tor Project how they want to release it.
⇧