Canonical's Snap Store Hit By Malicious Apps

[avis]

It is the latter in this case. A fake app pretend to be the official one and then bad thing happened. Such kind of attack is a threat to basically all app stores and require huge manpower to do the manual review for each app. Even Apple does not do this well, but they do require each and every app to be code signed to make it easier to validate the developer's identity.

Code signing is what is required by Android, highly recommended by Microsoft for applications and required for drivers. Overall a great idea to have at least some semblance of responsibility and traceability. It doesn't protect against determined hackers though but reduces their freedom of doing nasty things.

[timofonic]

I removed all snap packages and snapd a long time ago on my ubuntu installation. prevented re-install by "apt-mark hold snapd"..
I really dislike snap, they shoud adopt flatpak today.. It will be just like the scrollbars and unity.. They will ride that snap train for some releases ad then abandon it / replace it with flatpak.. Why not accelerate that and adopt flatpak today?

I agree. Anyway, I dislike flatpa(c)k and other similar crap (AppImage, etc). Classic packages are superior. Containerization is good, but applied to classic packages instead.

[JanC]

I removed all snap packages and snapd a long time ago on my ubuntu installation. prevented re-install by "apt-mark hold snapd"..
I really dislike snap, they shoud adopt flatpak today.. It will be just like the scrollbars and unity.. They will ride that snap train for some releases ad then abandon it / replace it with flatpak.. Why not accelerate that and adopt flatpak today?

Flatpak has a lot of the same issues Snap has (e.g. Firefox, Chrome/Chromium, etc. are broken in both).

And Snap actually makes sense & is used for some embedded/IoT purposes, I suppose, so they won't just abandon it (just like Mir is still around for those use cases).