{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreican3blbxbxkm6k5s2ylchfrhq7jk3jrk4xt7jz5isncyof3saooq",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:haakkg7y3xdghcdmprxeexso/app.bsky.feed.post/3mnb4wlha3fq2"
  },
  "path": "/t/is-secureblue-really-more-secure-if-browsers-have-to-be-installed-in-flatpaks/38287#post_1",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-01T21:52:30.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.privacyguides.net",
  "textContent": "Hi all,\n\nI’ve been trying out secureblue on a second laptop but run into some major issues.\n\n  1. firefox based browsers don’t work with hardened malloc\n\n  2. I can’t seem to install either librewolf or mullvad on an atomic distro anyway.\n\n\n\n\nThis means that AFAIK I can’t install mullvad browser at all and I would need to install librewolf/tor as flatpaks and then disable hardened malloc for those flatpaks.\n\nAs I understand it flatpaks reduce security for browsers (as opposed to increasing it for most apps) as the flatpak sandboxing interferes with the browser sandboxing stopping it from working.\n\nWhile most of the security tweaks to secureblue look great, if it decreases security on such a vital app as a browser does it really work out more secure?\n\nThanks",
  "title": "Is secureblue really more secure if browsers have to be installed in flatpaks?"
}