Fedora threatened with legal action from OBS Studio due to their Flatpak packaging
If there's one thing you can always count on in the Linux world it's that packaging can be a nightmare. The OBS Studio team are not happy with the Fedora folks due to Flatpak problems and threatened legal action.
You're the one spreading misinformation.
The burden of proof is on you. I linked you to the docs showing how package signatures have been required in apt since 2005. Most package managers do not have signature verification.
Point me to where the docs say signatures are required to be verified after download.
The burden of proof is on you.
You accused flatpak of being insecure. The burden to prove that is totally on you.
Nah, tech is insecure by default.
You have not provided a single link.
I'm am no expert on flatpak and just did some basic searching.
From reading the command reference it seems GPG-Verification is enabled for each remote and can't be disabled/enabled for each install.
I can just find some issues where gpg verification fails
Error: GPG verification enabled, but no signatures found (use gpg-verify=false in remote config to disable) error: Failed to install bundle fr.handbrake.ghb: GPG verification enabled, but no signatures found (use gpg-verify=false in remote config to disable)
Documentation seems to be more user oriented and not developer oriented maybe someone more knowledgeble can go in the source code and tell us how it actually works.
Sorry here's the link
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
Link me to the docs that say this
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.
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.