Again, no.
Comment on Is Matrix cooked?
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 days agoBecause any programs have that access??
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 day ago
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
how are programs denied that access? how is it that they can’t do that?
with the computers that I know, if I download a program, that’ll be able to read, and also modify all the files that I have access to. this includes the ability to read the saved passwords from my browser, and to install browser addons without my consent or knowledge.
what makes it so that it cannot happen on mainstream desktop computers?
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 day ago
how are programs denied that access? how is it that they can’t do that?
Apps are typically given their own dedicated storage volume, and access to any other part of the filesystem requires permission from the user.
this includes the ability to read the saved passwords from my browser, and to install browser addons without my consent or knowledge.
WTF kind of computers are you using?
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Apps are typically given their own dedicated storage volume, and access to any other part of the filesystem requires permission from the user.
uh, no? on smartphones, yes, but not on computers.
and even on smartphones. the chat app does have access to your messages, as I originally said
WTF kind of computers are you using?
desktop… computers? you probably heard about operating systems, like windows, and linux…
Zangoose@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Not sure what platform you’re on but on Linux flatpak can limit access to files, and things like AppArmor can do that for any native app as well (though it can be pretty tedious to configure)
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
on linux. flatpak. now, how mainstream is that setup exactly? are you saying that the issue I brought up does not apply to most of the people on the internet?
it does not matter what platform I’m on. what matters is what do most people use. in the world where I live, most people use the windows operating system. there is no such protection at all. except when accounting for sandboxie and other obscure programs virtually no one knows about
Zangoose@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I mentioned Linux specifically because something like this is the hardest to set up on Linux. I (wrongly) assumed that since you were complaining about it not existing, you were on a platform where setting these permissions up isn’t straightforward. App-specific file-acess permissions are on MacOS out of the box as a configurable setting for all applications (in the system settings menu), and I’m pretty sure Windows 10/11 has something similar in its settings menu as well.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
For photos at the very least, it’s the same on iOS. Haven’t tested with files. But anytime I needed to send people photos over FB Messenger, I’d add access to that one specific photo and nothing more. Until I got tired of it and added all photos. Oh well.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I don’t know about macos, but I doubt that it applies to software tgat was obtained outside of their app store.
on windows however, those settings only apply to UWP apps. not .exe and .bat and .msi and .ps programs, but .appx packages that you can install from the Microsoft Store. and installing something from the Microsoft Store does not mean that it’ll be sandboxed, lots of regular .exe programare also distributed there.
those are mobile operating systems, they have been designed with this in mind from the beginning. General purpose desktop computers are very different though, for better or worse. and, as I know, desktop computer users are still not a small minority