this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
188 points (98.5% liked)

Linux

6067 readers
317 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system

Also check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ategon@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev
188
Fedora threatened with legal action from OBS Studio due to their Flatpak packaging (www.gamingonlinux.com)
submitted 6 days ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/linux@programming.dev
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MissingInteger@lemm.ee 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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
  • The new app has that app id
  • The new app has a later timestamp on update
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Link me to the docs that say this

[–] MissingInteger@lemm.ee 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl -2 points 5 days ago

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.