• clearleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        How is this notable or interesting then? I thought we were all just accepting that malicious software is an inherent part of all open platforms.

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Open platforms often have individuals running/hosting their own repositories, which means the risk is distributed.

          This means that the individual repository can be attacked without affecting the whole network. The risk is still there, but they would have to simultaneously attack all repositories at once and succeed with all of them.

          In a corporate-hosted platform like Snaps, you have one centralized location that can be abused and that can affect all repositories in the system.

          If someone hacks Canonical, they can make the whole Snap Store an attack vector without nearly as much effort.

          • lengau@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            If someone hacks Canonical, they can make the whole Snap Store an attack vector without nearly as much effort.

            So basically the same as if someone hacked flathub? Or if someone hacked Canonical/Debian/Red Hat/whoever and gained access to their package signing key?

    • jbk@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Those are just app distribution formats. Since there’s just 1 snap store which can deliver snaps, they’re not comparable.

      • lengau@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        What Flatpak stores are there in widespread use other than flathub? (Additional servers that depend on the runtimes flathub distributes don’t count.)