Bubblewrap
v0.13.1 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on Bubblewrap's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Bubblewrap is a tool for constructing sandbox environments that lets unprivileged users run applications with restricted access to the operating system.
bwrap --ro-bind /usr /usr --proc /proc --dev /dev --unshare-pid --sync-fd 5 --sync-fd 6 bash meson setup _builddir -Ddebug_logging=true meson compile -C _builddir DEBUG_INVOCATION=1 _builddir/bwrap --ro-bind /usr /usr --proc /proc --dev /dev --unshare-pid bash bwrap --not-a-security-boundary --ro-bind /usr /usr --proc /proc --dev /dev --unshare-pid bash meson setup builddir -Dsupport_setuid=false && ninja -C builddir bwrap --level-prefix --ro-bind / / -- myapp 2>&1 | systemd-cat --level-prefix=1 bwrap --bind-fd 5 /mnt/sandbox-root ... 5</path/to/trusted/dir bwrap --argv0 my-app --run bash bwrap --symlink /host/lib:/usr/lib --run bash bwrap --size 512m --tmpfs /tmp meson setup build -Dbwrapdir=/opt/bwrap bwrap --seccomp base.json --add-seccomp custom-restrictions.json /bin/sh bwrap --userns <namespace_id> --die-with-parent /bin/sh bwrap --pidns <pid_namespace_id> --unshare-cgroup /bin/sh bwrap --bind-try /etc/myapp.conf /etc/myapp.conf bwrap --version | grep -q '\-\-' && echo "Support present" || echo "Unsupported" bwrap --die-with-parent make check
Summary
Bubblewrap is an open-source command-line sandboxingsandboxingRunning code inside a restricted environment that limits what it can access or change. The isolation reduces the impact of mistakes or untrusted code, depending on the sandbox's controls. tool for Linux that builds isolated container environments using unprivileged user namespaces, rather than requiring root or setuid binaries. It runs as a single binary invoked with arguments that define mounts, filesystem layout, and process restrictions, so the security model of any given sandbox is entirely determined by whoever constructs the command line — often a larger framework rather than an end user. Its README notes it is used underneath tools like Flatpak and libgnome-desktop, making it most relevant to developers building sandboxing or container frameworks rather than a ready-made sandbox for end users. It sits in the runtime-security and container-isolation space, with recent work adding file-descriptor-based mounts to close TOCTOU races, overlay mount support, and a non-fatal setup mode for cases that don't require a strict security boundary.
Bubblewrap is a tool for constructing sandbox environments that lets unprivileged users run applications with restricted access to the operating system.
How Bubblewrap helps
Can an unprivileged user on this machine run a confined process without a setuid helper?
it builds the sandbox with Linux user namespaces alone, so any logged-in user can construct the container without root or a setuid binary being installed
Does a directory get swapped out from under a sandbox between the time it is checked and the time it is mounted?
mounting by a pre-opened file descriptor instead of a path closes that window, so a caller that verifies a path first can bind exactly what it verified
Should a sandbox setup failure abort the job or continue anyway?
a flag marking the sandbox as not a security boundary makes setup problems like a failed submount remount non-fatal, so filesystem-layout use cases keep running instead of hard-failing
Is a given deployment still relying on the old setuid installation mode?
setuid support has been removed entirely, so any binary built or installed that way will refuse to run, surfacing the dependency immediately rather than silently staying insecure
Can sandbox log messages be correlated with the rest of the system journal during an incident?
log output can be emitted in a form systemd-cat and logger understand, so sandbox events carry proper priority levels alongside other journal entries
Languages
Command line
No command matches.
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
- Community health
-
Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
-
Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
-
Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
-
Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply
Nine scores for Bubblewrap, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail Bubblewrap puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Releases
22 entries
No entries match these filters.
- October 20261
- September 20261
- August 20262
- April 20262
- October 20241
- August 20242
- March 20241
- February 20231
- November 20221
- May 20221
- February 20221
- August 20211
- November 20191
- May 20191
- September 20181
- July 20181
- October 20171
- March 20171
- January 20171
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in containers/bubblewrap, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 11 +8 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 3 +3 joined · −1 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 2 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 91% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 2.2 days first maintainer reply 3.4 hours
- Open backlog 153 of 393 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 2 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 153
- Contributors / month 3
- Commits / month 22
- Stars 8,768
- features 4%
- other 96%
Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this
Libraries its release ships
What its latest release locks, checked against known advisories.None of its release's images build from a lockfile we can read.
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.