As well as misleading, the article seems outdated? Which is weird, because archive.org's first snapshot of it is today.
So, GNOME Software has included a "Permissions" field (which lists an application's specific sandbox holes) since - if I recall correctly - GNOME 3.34: https://i.imgur.com/lCGgA1B.png. Not perfect, but definitely better than pictured. It's a bit of a shame that people have to use older versions of GNOME in 2020, but then, it's nice that Flatpak makes it easy to run new applications regardless :)
So, woefully behind schedule, but, how long was the author sitting on these? It would be more accurate, less irritating, and more persuasive if they simply talked about it after the fact: this happened, various things are wrong with it, it should be avoidable, etc.
So, GNOME Software has included a "Permissions" field (which lists an application's specific sandbox holes) since - if I recall correctly - GNOME 3.34: https://i.imgur.com/lCGgA1B.png. Not perfect, but definitely better than pictured. It's a bit of a shame that people have to use older versions of GNOME in 2020, but then, it's nice that Flatpak makes it easy to run new applications regardless :)
Also, I was trying to verify the author's claim about a vulnerable libssh in the gitg package, partly because I was curious whether they'd bothered to report any of these issues upstream. Looks like that was fixed in May: https://github.com/flathub/org.gnome.gitg/pull/12. Similar story with ffmpeg: https://gitlab.com/freedesktop-sdk/freedesktop-sdk/-/commit/....
So, woefully behind schedule, but, how long was the author sitting on these? It would be more accurate, less irritating, and more persuasive if they simply talked about it after the fact: this happened, various things are wrong with it, it should be avoidable, etc.