If there's one thing you can always count on in the Linux world it's that packaging can be a nightmare. The OBS Studio team are not happy with the Fedora folks due to Flatpak problems and threatened legal action.
This seems to be blatant misinformation.
The default seems to require a gpg signature. It can be disabled for a remote with --no-gpg-verify, but the default for installing and building definitely requires a signature.
You keep talking about the docs, so please show me where is says that in the Flatpak Documentation.
The burden of proof is on you. I linked you to the docs showing how package signatures have been required in apt since 2005. Most package managers do not have signature verification.
Point me to where the docs say signatures are required to be verified after download.
I’m am no expert on flatpak and just did some basic searching.
From reading the command reference it seems GPG-Verification is enabled for each remote and can’t be disabled/enabled for each install.
I can just find some issues where gpg verification fails
Error: GPG verification enabled, but no signatures found (use gpg-verify=falsein remote config to disable)
error: Failed to install bundle fr.handbrake.ghb: GPG verification enabled, but no signatures found (use gpg-verify=falsein remote config to disable)
Documentation seems to be more user oriented and not developer oriented maybe someone more knowledgeble can go in the source code and tell us how it actually works.
So you linked to apt.
I guess good for anyone who finds this interesting…
But more on topic here is is a link to answer from 2020 from an flatpak maintainer:
If a user installs or updates a specific app-id the code verifies that:
The new app is gpg signed by a trusted key
Checksum verifying that all files are untampered with
You are not arguing in good faith.
I have linked multiple times to the docs and to the GitHub repository of flatpak.
Now how about you link to something useful in the docs that proves your point or maybe just a random article as source to your misinformation.
Yeah, thats optional. Unlike actual secure package managers like apt, where signing has been required since 2005.
What you need to look at is the docs for installing, and note it doesn’t say anything about requiring valid signatures after downloading a payload.
Flatpak doesn’t care about security. avoid them.
This seems to be blatant misinformation.
The default seems to require a gpg signature. It can be disabled for a remote with
--no-gpg-verify, but the default for installing and building definitely requires a signature.You keep talking about the docs, so please show me where is says that in the Flatpak Documentation.
You’re the one spreading misinformation.
The burden of proof is on you. I linked you to the docs showing how package signatures have been required in apt since 2005. Most package managers do not have signature verification.
Point me to where the docs say signatures are required to be verified after download.
You accused flatpak of being insecure. The burden to prove that is totally on you.
Nah, tech is insecure by default.
You have not provided a single link.
I’m am no expert on flatpak and just did some basic searching.
From reading the command reference it seems GPG-Verification is enabled for each remote and can’t be disabled/enabled for each install. I can just find some issues where gpg verification fails
Error: GPG verification enabled, but no signatures found (use gpg-verify=false in remote config to disable) error: Failed to install bundle fr.handbrake.ghb: GPG verification enabled, but no signatures found (use gpg-verify=false in remote config to disable)Documentation seems to be more user oriented and not developer oriented maybe someone more knowledgeble can go in the source code and tell us how it actually works.
Sorry here’s the link
https://wiki.debian.org/SecureApt
So you linked to apt.
I guess good for anyone who finds this interesting…
But more on topic here is is a link to answer from 2020 from an flatpak maintainer:
Link me to the docs that say this
You are not arguing in good faith.
I have linked multiple times to the docs and to the GitHub repository of flatpak.
Now how about you link to something useful in the docs that proves your point or maybe just a random article as source to your misinformation.
You have failed to find a doc that say signatures are required to be valid on the client for everything it downloads.
This software isn’t secure. You can live in la-la land, pretending it has features it doesn’t, but that doesn’t change the facts.