19 ms·

It does give full access but Obsidian does tell you that. Community plugins are not enabled by default, you have to enable them manually. Same happens with a sh

It does give full access but Obsidian does tell you that. Community plugins are not enabled by default, you have to enable them manually. Same happens with a shared vault: once you get it you still have to manually enable plugins. So far no one managed to sneak in a plugin completely unnoticed.

Groxx 4mo ago
"Hey users: don't do insecure things. Here's a button to do cool insecure things!" is not a plugin security model.
- Ferret7446 4mo ago
  Meanwhile that is exactly what a lot of people here want for Android with side loaded apps
  - eightys3v3n 4mo ago
    I'm not sure I agree or understand where you're coming from. Side-loaded Android apps are still bound by all the same permission restrictions as any app installed by the Play Store. The only difference is Google didn't review it (for what little good that does) and that I didn't get the app from Google. If I side-load a camera app, it still has to ask for camera privileges the same way any Play store app does. Is there something in your message I missed about how it relates to this article or is this just being uninformed about side-loading?
  - Groxx 4mo ago
    Sideloading bypasses nothing at all except Google's thumbs-up, Android's permission system doesn't work that way.
kid64 4mo ago
That's horse hockey. Obsidian is not a usable system without community plugins. Folks will reply "but I use it every day without plugins". That position disregards software usability as a formal discipline, along with decades of UX research and standards.
- ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
  The attack here requires not just enabling community plugins, but also syncing the attacker's vault to your computer, and also separately enabling the synchronization of the attacker's plugins with yours.
  - guiambros 4mo ago
    Yes, in this specific case. Obsidian Plugins are still incredibly vulnerable. A compromised plugin will essentially take over your machine. There's no sandboxing of any kind. It's even more insecure than browser extensions (that could steal your auth tokens, but at least don't have unfettered access to your filesystem). This is really unfortunate. I love Obsidian and am a paid subscriber for many years, but the community plugins needs a security overhaul asap, before someone gets hurt.
    - Ferret7446 4mo ago
      The same is true for all software on your machine.
      - Groxx 4mo ago
        Not even slightly. Browser extensions are a trivial counter-example, as are all flatpacks, and anything restricted by user/group. That covers probably literally a majority of all software on your computer, because people have been voluntarily restricting their software to protect you from their potential accidents for decades.
        ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
        > That covers probably literally a majority of all software on your computer If you're running GNU/Linux, chances are you'll have hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of software that run totally unsandboxed. Yes, a very small minority of applications are unfortunately primarily distributed via flatpak or snap, and the distributors don't care about the user experience, so it's error-ridden and problem-ridden, but chances are you can get a "normal computer program" version of it unencumbered by such grossness.

Groxx 4mo ago

"Hey users: don't do insecure things. Here's a button to do cool insecure things!" is not a plugin security model.

Ferret7446 4mo ago
Meanwhile that is exactly what a lot of people here want for Android with side loaded apps
- eightys3v3n 4mo ago
  I'm not sure I agree or understand where you're coming from. Side-loaded Android apps are still bound by all the same permission restrictions as any app installed by the Play Store. The only difference is Google didn't review it (for what little good that does) and that I didn't get the app from Google. If I side-load a camera app, it still has to ask for camera privileges the same way any Play store app does. Is there something in your message I missed about how it relates to this article or is this just being uninformed about side-loading?
- Groxx 4mo ago
  Sideloading bypasses nothing at all except Google's thumbs-up, Android's permission system doesn't work that way.

kid64 4mo ago

That's horse hockey. Obsidian is not a usable system without community plugins. Folks will reply "but I use it every day without plugins". That position disregards software usability as a formal discipline, along with decades of UX research and standards.

ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
The attack here requires not just enabling community plugins, but also syncing the attacker's vault to your computer, and also separately enabling the synchronization of the attacker's plugins with yours.
- guiambros 4mo ago
  Yes, in this specific case. Obsidian Plugins are still incredibly vulnerable. A compromised plugin will essentially take over your machine. There's no sandboxing of any kind. It's even more insecure than browser extensions (that could steal your auth tokens, but at least don't have unfettered access to your filesystem). This is really unfortunate. I love Obsidian and am a paid subscriber for many years, but the community plugins needs a security overhaul asap, before someone gets hurt.
  - Ferret7446 4mo ago
    The same is true for all software on your machine.
    - Groxx 4mo ago
      Not even slightly. Browser extensions are a trivial counter-example, as are all flatpacks, and anything restricted by user/group. That covers probably literally a majority of all software on your computer, because people have been voluntarily restricting their software to protect you from their potential accidents for decades.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
        > That covers probably literally a majority of all software on your computer If you're running GNU/Linux, chances are you'll have hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of software that run totally unsandboxed. Yes, a very small minority of applications are unfortunately primarily distributed via flatpak or snap, and the distributors don't care about the user experience, so it's error-ridden and problem-ridden, but chances are you can get a "normal computer program" version of it unencumbered by such grossness.