• 6 Posts
  • 191 Comments
Joined 14 days ago
cake
Cake day: January 6th, 2026

help-circle



  • oversimplifying a bit:

    TLS (https) provides transport security that whatever is served by the mirror is really associated with the domain name for that mirror domain name. Each HTTPS response is signed live so the private key must be “hot” and loaded in memory on the mirror (or its reverse proxy).

    PGP signatures provides integrity and authentication that the package files themsvelves have been signed by the repo signing key. This signing can be done once per package and the private key can be offline.

    HTTPS is not a replacement for PGP sigs. They are for different things. HTTPS will provide a bit better privacy (and now that I think of it, theoretically some package manager could be vulnerable to downgrade mitm - substitute a package with a legit and signed but older vulnerable version - or other bugs).

    PGP on the other hand is such a mess that even some cryptographers don’t like it.

    I’ve seen plenty of critique on PGP for email encryption but that’s not relevant here.

    sq (sequoia) is great alternative implementation you can use instead of GnuPG.



  • kumi@feddit.onlinetoOpen Source@lemmy.mlMobile App Frameworks
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    I think it depends a lot on what you are building.

    For bigger projects and apps leveraging the mobile platform I’m 100% with you.

    These kinds of frameworks can still be a good fit for a quick MVP demo, as a stepping stone for porting an existing web app, or if all you really want is a glorified web view (or are PWAs enough for the last one these days?)

    Specifically RN is in terrible shape and IMO something to avoid though.



  • Tricking users into using Snap without realizing it, making them unknowingly vulnerable to exploits like this, would be really really bad and unethical on Canonical’s part.

    That is not what is happening at all.

    Just so nobody is confused or gets afraid of their install: Getting the Firefox snap installed via Ubuntus apt package does not make users vulnerable to what is talked about here and is just as safe as the apt package version. For Firefox snaps might even be safer since you will probably get security patches earlier than with apt upgrades and get some sandboxing. In both cases you are pulling signed binaries from Canonical servers.

    The post is about third-party fake snaps. If you run a snap install command from a random web site or LLM wkthout checking it, or making a typo, then you are at risk. If Ubuntu didnt have snaps, this would be malicious flatpaks. If Ubuntu didnt have flatpaks, it would be malicious PPAs. And so on. Whatever hosted resource gets widely popular and allows users to blindly run and install software from third-parties will be abused for malware, phishing, typosquatting and so on. This is not the fault of the host. You can have access to all the apps out there you may ever want or you can safely install all your apps from one trusted source. But it’s an illusion that you can never have both.

    People have opinions about if snaps are a good idea or not and thats fine but there shouldnt be FUD. If you are using Canonicals official snaps and are happy with them you dont have to switch.