On 9/19/20 5:39 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
I don't understand why you'd be telling me to write code to use saned
in a way that it wasn't designed for and the net backend when earlier
in the thread you told me that the SANE API didn't allow for ADF
detection or PDF scanning. So which is it? ;)
I
On Sat, 2020-09-19 at 18:01 +0200, Jörn-Ingo Weigert wrote:
> Thanks for your opinion Bastien, please acknowledge mine too.
> I don't see any sense to sandbox all and everything, just because you
> can.
> Better to fix problems and security issues, here related to Sane,
> than just sandboxing it
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 12:02:44PM -0700, C. Cook wrote:
> You nailed it. It's the same root user permissions that got me last time.
>
> Network scanning just locks up the scanner (with proper permissions) so
> I had to move the scanner to my main server and just use it by USB.
>
> Gotta fix
On 2020-09-19 10:48, Simon Matter wrote:
>> I've installed the iScan software into CentOS 7.6 and the epkowa.conf
>> backend is there.
>>
>> The scannerl shows up in lsusb and scanimage -L, but gscan2pdf, XSane,
>> and iscan software can't find it.
>>
>> I can even scan using scanimage >test.jpg
> I've installed the iScan software into CentOS 7.6 and the epkowa.conf
> backend is there.
>
> The scannerl shows up in lsusb and scanimage -L, but gscan2pdf, XSane,
> and iscan software can't find it.
>
> I can even scan using scanimage >test.jpg and the image comes out fine.
> But nothing else
I've installed the iScan software into CentOS 7.6 and the epkowa.conf
backend is there.
The scannerl shows up in lsusb and scanimage -L, but gscan2pdf, XSane,
and iscan software can't find it.
I can even scan using scanimage >test.jpg and the image comes out fine.
But nothing else works.
How
Thanks for your opinion Bastien, please acknowledge mine too.
I don't see any sense to sandbox all and everything, just because you can.
Better to fix problems and security issues, here related to Sane, than just
sandboxing it and hope, that sandboxing works... and that's what sandboxing
is
On Sat, 2020-09-19 at 07:55 -0400, Kelly Price wrote:
> The question I have is... how strong is the Flatpak sandbox?
Flatpak's sandbox is as strong as you set it up to be, stronger using
Wayland than X11, stronger when there's no network access, stronger
when there's no direct file access, etc.
On Sat, 2020-09-19 at 14:42 +0300, Alexander Pevzner wrote:
> On 9/19/20 12:25 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > Sealed memfds, passed via D-Bus, that's 1/2GB in all :)
>
> If D-Bus can pass an arbitrary file descriptor, it can be used to
> pass
> AF_UNIX socket, allowing usage of "network"
On Sat, 2020-09-19 at 14:03 +0200, Jörn-Ingo Weigert wrote:
> Sandboxing is the loosing sign of developers who can't fix things and
> don't know their product.
You really don't have to send emails to the list if that's going to be
your level of discourse.
Wes, I'm going to need a more detailed log to figure this out. Also,
there is no point in doing a command line redirection when doing a
duplex scan, you will throw away the back page.
SANE_DEBUG_FUJITSU=35 scanimage --resolution 100 --mode grayscale
--source 'ADF Duplex' --compression JPEG
Sandboxing is the loosing sign of developers who can't fix things and don't
know their product.
Kelly Price schrieb am Sa., 19. Sep. 2020, 13:55:
> The question I have is... how strong is the Flatpak sandbox? Will it
> allow such a deal?
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 7:42 AM Alexander Pevzner
>
The question I have is... how strong is the Flatpak sandbox? Will it
allow such a deal?
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 7:42 AM Alexander Pevzner wrote:
>
> On 9/19/20 12:25 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > Sealed memfds, passed via D-Bus, that's 1/2GB in all :)
>
> If D-Bus can pass an arbitrary file
On 9/19/20 12:25 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
Sealed memfds, passed via D-Bus, that's 1/2GB in all :)
If D-Bus can pass an arbitrary file descriptor, it can be used to pass
AF_UNIX socket, allowing usage of "network" transport without actual
access to networking, and saving 1/2GB of memfs :-)
On Sat, 2020-09-19 at 12:13 +0300, Alexander Pevzner wrote:
> On 9/19/20 11:57 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > D-Bus traffic is filtered, and we can select which services the
> > application has access to. By default, only portals are accessible,
> > nothing else, greatly reducing potential security
On 9/19/20 11:57 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
D-Bus traffic is filtered, and we can select which services the
application has access to. By default, only portals are accessible,
nothing else, greatly reducing potential security and privacy issues.
How do you plan to receive scanned images from
On Sat, 2020-09-19 at 00:24 -0700, Perry Hutchison wrote:
> [Cc's dropped, because mailman complained of too many recipients]
>
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> > ... using the "net" driver. It still requires punching a hole
> > in the sandbox which shouldn't be necessary.
>
> Why is punching a
[Cc's dropped, because mailman complained of too many recipients]
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> ... using the "net" driver. It still requires punching a hole
> in the sandbox which shouldn't be necessary.
Why is punching a hole for network::localhost -- allowing access
(via network) only to
18 matches
Mail list logo
