We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
There are valid reasons to allow external snaps to e.g. capture screenshots, or provide input methods.
It's currently only possible to globally enable those protocols, opening up for attacks.
We need a way to allow privileged (e.g. through snap interface connections) snaps to access those, and for the device operator to decide.
Applying apparmor labels is what we always thought can be the mediation layer here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
One thing we've talked about in the past is sourcing the auth_model content from a configuration file managed by a snap option.
auth_model
Sorry, something went wrong.
IMO we should try and focus on snap interfaces, that gives a more integrated story (e.g. autoconnections, brand/dedicated store assertions).
No branches or pull requests
There are valid reasons to allow external snaps to e.g. capture screenshots, or provide input methods.
It's currently only possible to globally enable those protocols, opening up for attacks.
We need a way to allow privileged (e.g. through snap interface connections) snaps to access those, and for the device operator to decide.
Applying apparmor labels is what we always thought can be the mediation layer here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: