5 comments

  • refibrillator 2 minutes ago

    Hi OP, funny enough I’m working on something very similar. Lots of us are I guess! Take that as validation of your thinking.

    I like that your readme has a couple paragraphs comparing to popular tools in this space. Personally I feel it is a bit light on the security differentiators (if any). For example you are using the same fundamental primitives that are used in nsjail, runc, etc. Thus it seems you have recreated those libraries in some aspects, so would be curious to hear your rationale for approaching this way vs building explicitly on those primitives.

  • yu3zhou4 24 minutes ago

    Gratulacje Jan! Looks like something critical to gain adoption these days, security-wise. For others who also wonder how it works, I find this docs page a bit more informative than the landing page https://droprun.sh/docs/sandbox-overview/

  • zoobab 14 minutes ago

    Have you ever tried to use proot?

    It does not use process namespaces, and can run on Android (on Termux with proot-distro).

  • JoshTriplett 20 minutes ago

    So, the primary advantage of this over bubblewrap is the insulation layer between the program and kernel syscalls?

      mixedbit 7 minutes ago

      Bubblewrap is a low level tool, it describes itself as a sandbox building block, rather than a high-level sandbox intended to be used directly (for example, Flatpak uses bubblewrap as its building block). Drop in contrast is high-level, designed to be used directly in day-to-day work without the need to assemble the low-level details of the sandbox.