Hi,
Well, like, i do not disagree, but i wanted to make the difference a little bit more apparent. But yeah, sometimes vim also could be a problem. but not that serious as most GUI-with-Network-programs-which-only-calculates-dates.
Not sure I agree here. Complexity only translates into attack surface if it's actually exposed. The probability that an exploitable vulnerability in the GUI calculator is found is basically zero, because almost none of the complexity is exposed. Meanwhile, vim is arguably less complex, but exposed a lot of its complexity, so arbitrary code execution managed to slip through as a documented feature (!).
Exactly. we need landlock in every basesystem for that. AND: people have to accept seccomp. Many do not like containers, why should they accept seccomp?
Landlock and seccomp can be used by the applications themselves, without the need for a third-party container solution, same as with unveil and pledge on OpenBSD. For example, I know for a fact that all major browsers and the file tool use seccomp for sandboxing, and I think systemd and qemu do as well. Still, not many applications do this. I should probably start adding seccomp and landlock support to my simple toy applications as a positive example ;) Alois