It's obviously true. Executing random binaries from the internet directly on your machine is clearly much less secure than executing a js script in an extremely hardened and restricted browser sandbox.

> They can take over your system silently and you don't need to click on anything

No, this is totally wrong. All browsers require explicit permission to grant access to hardware resources, they cannot "take over your system silently"... unlike an arbitrary binary.

This is absurd. A binary reviewed and vetted by a Linux distro is really unlike to contain spyware, unlike 90% of webpages. The web a well-known security dumpster fire.

Additionally, it's false that desktop applications are not sandboxed. On the contrary, the sandbox implemented around an application can be way more fine-grained that a browser. Firejail is a good example.

Browsers are behemoths and you can look up for yourself how many vulnerabilities they have and also the SLOC count.

Edit: silent downvotes? Leave it to HN to believe that webshit is more secure than desktop applications. This is material for /r/ShitHNSays

Do you execute shell scripts that are curled from the internet?

Why not? The reason is probably the same why other people argue that they don't want to install desktop apps anymore.

They don't trust those apps, because the security model they have in place doesn't live up to their expectations. Most users don't use opensnitch, selinux or firejail because those tools - honestly - suck for normal users.

We need to make app sandboxing easier, GUI driven and as simple as the android settings app (when it comes to the approachability).

The dumpster config fatigue that is selinux is just a bad joke and nobody will ever be able to use this tool correctly without having to make thousands of mistakes.

We have to build better profilers that use reasonable sandboxes by default, and allow to generate a config automatically for the end users.

The useless tech that is flatpak/snap/appimage is pretty much not what it promised initially when it nowadays bundles a microkernel, shared libraries and everything the app needs ... but cannot even protect my user's profile folder from the app I'm running.

I can't downvote you, but an arbitrary binary is unequivocally a much bigger security and privacy threat than a js script executed in the browser, this is an indisputable fact. My guess is that you're getting downvoted because you're confidently espousing an opinion that any security expert would easily disabuse you of, if you're willing to listen.

> This is absurd. A binary reviewed and vetted by a Linux distro is really unlike to contain spyware

What's absurd is your special pleading a linux distro review to conclude that arbitrary code execution is more secure than a js script. This is wrong on so many levels. This comparison is also specious because you're comparing a curated repository to arbitrary js on the internet. You are also woefully misinformed if you think that "linux distro review" precludes the existence of your vaguely defined "spyware", arbitrary binaries (unlike js scripts) have unrestricted socket access and quite regularly emit all kinds of telemetry over the internet.

> Additionally, it's false that desktop applications are not sandboxed. On the contrary, the sandbox implemented around an application can be way more fine-grained that a browser. Firejail is a good example.

You have no idea whether or not an arbitrary binary is sandboxed before you execute it, thus it is capable of literally anything - not true of an arbitrary js script which is always sandboxed.

> Browsers are behemoths and you can look up for yourself how many vulnerabilities they have and also the SLOC count.

The top browsers are literally the most hardened sandboxes in the history of computing and there are far more vulnerabilities exposed through the uncountable ecosystem of arbitrary binaries than through browsers, many of which are never patched, and when they are, often aren't received by users because they may not upgrade them. Additionally, the vast majority of browser vulnerabilities are of a modest threat level, with the higher threat vulnerabilities usually being discovered by highly sophisticated security research firms where they are usually safely patched before ever being exploited in the wild.

> This is material for /r/ShitHNSays

Indeed. Try submitting this thread and see how that turns out for you.

How is installing a binary supposed to be more secure than a web page? A binary can do largely whatever it wants, especially for an average person that will grant it all the permissions it requests.

A binary reviewed and vetted by a Linux distro is really unlike to contain spyware, unlike 90% of webpages.

You are making a surprisingly good case for browser apps. With binaries, you're restricted to a tiny fraction of available apps that are carefully vetted to _reduce_ the chance of security issues, whereas with browser apps, you can run any untrusted web page. A malicious binary can spy on pretty much any private and sensible data on your PC, while a malicious web page can only do some fingerprinting.