> A permissions system is planned

I'm not sure that "Plugins will declare what they access" should be interpreted as a planned sandbox system. My (cynic) interpretation that it's an opt-in honor system, that would give a good overview about well-maintained plugins, but doesn't do anything to restrict undesired API access by malware.

▲

kepano 4 hours ago | parent [-]

We haven't shared anything about sandboxing yet. Yes, to start disclosures will be opt-in because we have to help thousands of developers with existing plugins migrate.

However, a permissions system alone is not enough. For example if a user allows a plugin with network connections, it would be easy for a plugin to abuse that permission. That's why scanning the code is still necessary to give users trust in the plugin.

Take a look at scorecards on the Community site, you'll see why some issues are not something a permissions system or sandboxing could catch.

	▲	dtkav 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Speaking as someone who has been building a business around an Obsidian plugin - I think you're on the right track. What actually matters is that the plugin developer is pro-social, discloses the behavior, the user accepts that disclosure, and that the user isn't duped by their inability to review all of the code for every update.
	▲	hobofan 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Sorry, I think think my comment came off too dismissive. I do think that self-reports on permission usage are a step in the right direction, and can also help in decentralized uncovering of unintended API access. However I think with the recent pace of supply chain attacks, I think we'll be in for a rough couple months until a sandboxing system is added.