←back to thread

429 points saeedesmaili | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
gejose ◴[] No.45308131[source]
This is one way to look at it, but ignores the fact that most users use third party community plugins.

Obsidian has a truly terrible security model for plugins. As I realized while building my own, Obsidian plugins have full, unrestricted access to all files in the vault.

Obsidian could've instead opted to be more 'batteries-included', at the cost of more development effort, but instead leaves this to the community, which in turn increases the attack surface significantly.

Or it could have a browser extension like manifest that declares all permissions used by the plugin, where attempting to access a permission that's not granted gets blocked.

Both of these approaches would've led to more real security to end users than "we have few third party dependencies".

replies(19): >>45308149 #>>45308208 #>>45308212 #>>45308222 #>>45308224 #>>45308241 #>>45308572 #>>45308600 #>>45308749 #>>45310219 #>>45310642 #>>45310881 #>>45310991 #>>45311185 #>>45311760 #>>45311782 #>>45312975 #>>45313054 #>>45314194 #
0cf8612b2e1e ◴[] No.45308149[source]
Don’t most plugin models work this way? Does VSCode, Vim, Emacs, and friends do anything to segregate content? Gaming is the only area where I expect plugins have limited permissions.
replies(6): >>45308244 #>>45308310 #>>45308373 #>>45308539 #>>45309613 #>>45310771 #
1. ◴[] No.45309613[source]