GitHub - zadam/trilium: Build your personal knowledge base with Trilium Notes
github.com
Build your personal knowledge base with Trilium Notes - GitHub - zadam/trilium: Build your personal knowledge base with Trilium Notes

I mean Trilium is fantastic app, lots of potential but the developer is struggling on his own, maybe it’s because it’s younger than logseq or maybe because is open source compared to obsidian. I think it’s the best note-taking/knowledge-base/second-brain i know it virtually could link everything you posses toghter to create a gigantic wiki, so much potential. Plus it has its own self hostable syncing server and web app. Guys give it a look and tell me what you think

  • itchy_lizard@feddit.it
    3·
    1 year ago

    This is misinformation. Flatpaks are far less secure than installing from apt. All packages installed from apt are cryptographically signed. This isn’t the case with flatpaks.

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      2·
      1 year ago

      Hey, let’s just have a discussion without calling each other misinformation. I have made my claim and you have made yours.

      Now, it is true that apt packages are signed with GPG. However, the same is also true for Flatpak packages. https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/flatpak-builder.html#signing

      You can see Flathub’s GPG key by downloading https://flathub.org/repo/flathub.flatpakrepo and cating it.

      When it comes to supply chain security, Flathub’s centralized nature allows for additional security than traditional distro packaging, as packages can come directly from app developers. https://docs.flathub.org/docs/for-app-authors/verification

      Of course, I would love to see also reproducible builds like nix, and/or SBOMs like Docker, but these are not very popular security tools at the moment.

      • itchy_lizard@feddit.it
        1·
        1 year ago

        I’m not calling you names, I’m calling you out on misinformation. There is such a thing as facts, and it’s important that we don’t misconstrue them.

        Optional signing of commits in git is not the same thing as mandatory signing of all packages.

        Fact: If I download software with apt in Debian, It’s 100% going to verify the cryptographic authenticity of that package. If the signature doesn’t match, it won’t proceed with the install (unless I choose to override the warning).

        Fact: If I download software with flatpak, it may download maliciously modified software and install it without verifying its authenticity.

        I’m not aware of any way to configure flatpak to force it to verify the signature of releases between download & install (so if the signature is unavailable or invalid, it does not install the software). Again, flatpak is not a safe way to download software, and I don’t think it’s possible to configure it to be safe.

        If I’m the one spreading misinformation, then show me the documentation from flatpak that indicates that all packages are verified by their PGP key after download.

        I think it’s a fairly reasonable expectation that a software repo won’t download malicious software. Flatpak doesn’t do that.

        • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
          1·
          1 year ago

          The first link I sent says that flatpak does not allow users to override GPG and allow unsigned flatpaks unless they are root.

          • itchy_lizard@feddit.it
            1·
            1 year ago

            That’s not users of flstpak, that’s developers. This applies to developers uploading to flstpak. There isnot security for end-users downloading from flatpaks.