this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
68 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37730 readers
594 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
68
Alan Pope: "Multiple genuine-looking scam cryptocurrency miners and fake Bitcoin wallet applications have been published in the Snap store since 2018." (popey.com)
submitted 9 months ago by brie@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I used a sentence from the article as the title since I felt it represented the actual issue better, let me know if I should change it.

Essentially, Snap Store has basically no restrictions on publishing new applications, allowing for scammers to impersonate legitimate applications. In this case (and several times in the past) the target was a cryptocurrency wallet, resulting in ~$490,000 worth of bitcoin being stolen.

The "Safe" rating reminds me of this xkcd:

If someone steals my laptop while I'm logged in, they can read my email, take my money, and impersonate me to my friends, but at least they can't install drivers without my permission.

(For comparison, it seems being proprietary is an automatic unsafe rating for any application, which could be considered too extreme in the other direction.)

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] senseamidmadness@beehaw.org 12 points 9 months ago

Snap has always bothered me and this is another great reason why.

[–] rnd@beehaw.org 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

For comparison, I wonder how vulnerable Flathub (flatpak's primary repo) is to these kinds of manipulations... Seems like every app manifest there is publicly available and is compiled on their servers, presumably making it easier to spot shady apps and updates, and the submission process requires manual approval.

[–] brie@beehaw.org 1 points 9 months ago

Another thing that they do that should make the process less vulnerable is they try to get developers involved in packaging their own applications (and have a verified badge, though I'm not sure how rigorous their verification is).

[–] vsis@feddit.cl 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Friends don't let friends to use snap.

I used to love Ubuntu. But for many reasons, snaps among them, it no longer exists to me. It's just Mint or Debian if I need something Ubuntu-like.

[–] pineapple_santa@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It’s not all bad. If the alternative is downloading binaries from a website then confined snaps are a great way to get software.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Snaps are not confined, they're root-level system add-ons.

Flatpacks are slightly confined, they still get access to user data.

Android 10+ apps are confined, they have to ask for particular directory access... and users can still mess up and give them access to all their data. 🤷

[–] pineapple_santa@feddit.de 2 points 9 months ago

Classic snaps are not and a lot of snaps are classic. That much is true. Some snaps are indeed confined though. See https://snapcraft.io/docs/snap-confinement

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

Tbf it was always a nightmare to manage driver conflicts on Windows 95.