Flatseal VS firejail

And not only that, the idea of portals is, IMO, misguided. See this view/bugreport when a flatseal user understands that even though they restricted permissions to access a certain area, the flatpak, itself, can ask to open files there and if OK'd that will be allowed. Their expectation is that with the overrides say "no access" it means "no access even if the flatpak asks very nicely". https://github.com/tchx84/Flatseal/issues/196

Since you installed the programme via Flatpak, you should simply lack the necessary rights (https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/sandbox-permissions.html). You can extend the rights quite easily with https://github.com/tchx84/flatseal.

Yes, filed https://github.com/tchx84/Flatseal/issues/196 a while ago, got no joy.

One design feature than can turn into an issue in some scenarios (usually dev tools) is the permissions of a flatpak. In case I need to tweak things, I use Flatseal. I know you can manually do this from the command line but I don’t change permissions that often so I don’t bother learning how to do that.

Does the Flatpak Permissions Settings replace a tool like Flatseal?

What about flatseal then ? https://github.com/tchx84/Flatseal

https://github.com/tchx84/Flatseal (Also on Discover. For security reasons, the Discover store installs apps as sandboxed "flatpak" apps. This one is used to view what each up can do and change the permissions of apps. May be required if the sandboxing breaks something, though usually not required.)

I believe it does. As an example if I try running Godot from the Steam flatpak, it won't be able to see any of the contents of my ~/Projects folder unless I explicitly allow the steam flatpak access to that directory that via flatpak's CLI options or using Flatseal

bubblewrap is designed as a low-level too. There is nothing quick and dirty about it. It disallows everything by default and you have to be explicit about what you want to share with the host. If your application needs complex permissions/resources, then you will need to have a complex bubblewrap command line.

Once you have figured out which permissions/resources you need for a given program, you can wrap the command line invocation in a shell script.

If you want other people to do the work of defining permissions/resources, then have a look at firejail: https://github.com/netblue30/firejail

Firejail is cool: https://github.com/netblue30/firejail

Linux namespaces/cgroups but nowhere near as heavy as Docker.

I use it when I want to limit the memory of a Python script:

```

Firejail can also be a useful option, though no good if you're on Mac https://firejail.wordpress.com/

Uses the same Linux primitives as docker etc, but can be a bit more ergonomic for this use case

Firejail, Flatpak (which uses Bubblewrap under the hood), and Snap (which uses AppArmor) all use the same underlying technology: Linux namespaces.

This question comes up a lot, and has been answered here: https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/wiki/Frequently-Asked-...

TL;DR: Firejail has much more comprehensive features than Flatpak (Bubblewrap). Firejail also has more comprehensive network support, support for AppArmor and SELinux, and easier seccomp filtering.

Compared to Snap (which uses AppArmor), Firejail is compatible with AppArmor and again goes above and beyond with a lot of additional features.

Wonderful little tool, too bad you must chain various exec calling tools to get cgroups (a bit akin to `ionice ... nice ... cmd`) and Linux users namespaces can't allow UNIX sockets while preventing network access (I think?).

Migrated from Firejail when its complexity annoyed me too much and I hit https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/issues/3001 (Firejail doesn't like parens or brackets in --put/--get parameters) to a badly NIH version using bwrap and bash to have "profiles":

Firejail does this. The profile database is the two "profile" directories in https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/tree/master/etc

What do you mean by a Firefox container? Do you mean FireJail?