Skip to content
New issue

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

Give users hint that pkg installs work differently #5548

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 29, 2014

Conversation

rolandwalker
Copy link
Contributor

Users should not have to open the Cask file to figure out why one
cask installs differently than another.

Closes #5402.

Users should not have to open the Cask file to figure out why one
cask installs differently than another.

Closes Homebrew#5402.
rolandwalker added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2014
Give users hint that pkg installs work differently
@rolandwalker rolandwalker merged commit 469bce8 into Homebrew:master Jul 29, 2014
@rolandwalker rolandwalker deleted the notify_pkg_install branch July 29, 2014 13:15
@jm3
Copy link
Contributor

jm3 commented Oct 8, 2014

I definitely saw the message, tho it scared me more than explained what was actually happening. The message was like, "pkg installers can do anything... now give us your root password!"

@rolandwalker
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jm3 your summary is unfortunately true.

In practice I'm sure most pkg installers are fine, but they are permitted to run arbitrary postflight scripts, and it is hard to know what they are doing. The same is true when you double-click on a pkg in Finder.

There has been some talk about improving transparency and configurability by pulling open pkg files as archives and linking to their contents as we do with other Casks (#5442), and a small amount of effort toward that goal (#5622).

However, quite a bit more work and practical experimentation would have to be done to make that actually work.

@vitorgalvao
Copy link
Member

In practice I'm sure most pkg installers are fine, but they are permitted to run arbitrary postflight scripts

I’d argue this doesn’t necessarily concern us. We’ve (correctly) steered away from being a discoverability service, which means you have to specifically chose apps to install and you should know what they are (you wouldn’t install an app just because you searched for a name and liked it, right?). We do have a responsibility to check the links are correct and pointing to official sources, but nothing more after that. An app can be just as bad as a pkg (so what if it doesn’t ask for your password, sensitive information can be compromised from a regular user; the system itself is secondary and can just be reinstalled).

@rolandwalker
Copy link
Contributor Author

@vitorgalvao I take your point.

The PRs and issues above are not really about security, but more about enabling flexibility and cool hacks as sketched out in #6369.

Improved transparency is only an ancillary benefit, and transparency in itself does not improve security; it merely lowers the barrier for auditing.

Anyway, it is an academic discussion unless someone does substantial further work on the matter.

@Homebrew Homebrew locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 8, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

boot2docker installs in the wrong places
3 participants