Comment by naikrovek

Comment by naikrovek 5 days ago

2 replies

Plan9 had per-process namespaces in 1995.

One could easily allow or restrict visibility of almost anything to any program. There were/are some definite usability concerns with how it is done today (the OS was not designed to be friendly, but to try new things) and those could easily be solved. The core of this existed in the Plan9 kernel and the Plan9 kernel is small enough to be understood by one person.

I’m kinda angry that other operating systems don’t do this today. How much malware would be stopped in its tracks and made impotent if every program launched was inherently and natively walled off from everything else by default?

GrantMoyer 2 days ago

Linux supports per-process namespaces too, and has tools like firejail to use them for sandboxing, but nonetheless sandboxing is not widely used.

brendyn 5 days ago

I think this normalises running untrustworthy, abusive proprietary software, because they can at least be somewhat contained. The only reason I have apps like Facebook on my android phone is that I have sufficient trust in GrapheneOSs permissions. Then, apps like syncthing become crippled as filesystem virtualisation and restrictions prevent access and modification of files regardless of my consent.

Not disagreeing with the need for isolation though, I just think it should be designed carefully in a zero-sacrifice way (of use control/pragmatic software freedom)