5 ms·

I think that what Apple has done here is an acceptable tradeoff. The app store trades a small amount of privacy for a lot more security. Looking at Android's pe

I think that what Apple has done here is an acceptable tradeoff. The app store trades a small amount of privacy for a lot more security. Looking at Android's perpetual issues with this makes me think that Apple made the right choice.

nnutter 11y ago
Apple might just be better at covering it up. I would rather see it implemented like GateKeeper on OS X is. Safe store with the user having the power to decide if they leave the store or not.
- fpgeek 11y ago
  While I applaud the spirit, I don't think actually implementing it like GateKeeper is a good idea: http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/drop-dead-simple-exploit-completely-bypasses-macs-malware-gatekeeper/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/drop-dead-simple-exp...
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
The security benefits come mostly from curated package management in general, not limiting the device to one particular repository (the App Store).
- javajosh 11y ago
  I don't think the public is sophisticated enough to understand the decoupling of these two ideas. But I also think that one day, probably soon, it will be.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Technical users are members of the public, too. If you want to treat users like infants, then you should hereby completely forfeit any and all rights to complain about "tech shortages" and technical illiteracy of end users.
    - javajosh 11y ago
      So, this is a meta-comment because it's really just about your comment, but I feel compelled to point out the unnecessary negativity, and the unforced errors, so to speak, in representing my words, what I want, and what I've done. I'm not even sure what to call it when you create things I cannot do any longer to maintain consistency with my position - but without any evidence that I've done those things, or want to do those things. It's something like a straw-man argument. The right thing to do is to ignore it, but on the off-chance that you might be somewhat self-aware, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to catch yourself.
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        Apologies, the vitriol wasn't directed towards you, specifically. You simply gave me an opportune moment to express dissatisfaction with the paradoxical desire of simultaneously wanting more locked down devices in the name of convenience and "security", while also making programming and/or CS a compulsory school subject.
        pyre 11y ago
        > "security" Why the scare quotes? Just because it doesn't provide 100% security doesn't mean that it provides no security.
gozo 11y ago
So we have forgotten XcodeGhost already or the iCloud hacks?
- jolux 11y ago
  Neither of which would be aided by opening the walled garden? Which isn't to say I don't think there are advantages to Android's model and that of more open package repositories in general, especially for power users. However most of Apple's base is people who don't care about openness or extra repositories, they want their iPhone to work with a minimum of fuss and not have to worry about malware like you do on Android. The fact that we can only point to a single (XcodeGhost) cromulent exploitation of the Apple App Store stack is a testament to how good Apple is at maintaining the relative security of the iOS ecosystem.
  - gozo 11y ago
    The point is that security is not an inherent or necessarily attainable feature of a walled garden. Some people seem to think that just because Apple approves apps there isn't going to be any security issues. The approval process does prevent some security problems, and has some other features, but mobile security overwhelmingly comes from things like sandboxing.
    - jolux 11y ago
      Perhaps that's the case, but if it is, then it seems clear that Apple's sandbox is far better than Android's as well. Also, approving apps does cull out a range of malware, because it is human- and computer-analyzed before entry. As I said previously, this has its downsides, but it does make it harder to get malware into the iOS App Store. Not impossible, but harder.
- IBM 11y ago
  XcodeGhost wouldn't have happened if developers weren't able to disable Gatekeeper and the iCloud hack was done with phishing for security question answers. http://gawker.com/feds-seized-chicago-mans-computers-in-celeb-nude-leak-i-1709153721 http://gawker.com/feds-seized-chicago-mans-computers-in-cele...
devit 11y ago
Security? What security? Every single release with iOS has been totally broken security-wise, as can seen from the existence of jailbreaks. Apple doesn't even require seeing the source code, and so there is no way they can stop malicious applications written to evade detection from getting to the App Store. And thanks to their policy you must browse with Safari WebKit, which is a nice juicy ~40% browser share target. Of course, both Android and Windows Phone are broken too, since they also expose oversized monolithic kernels written in C to random applications, but at least Android doesn't require you to give up freedom to get non-security.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  > Every single release with iOS has been totally broken security-wise, as can seen from the existence of jailbreaks. The jailbreaks for recent versions of iOS only allow jailbreaking unlocked devices, at which point security is already compromised. > And thanks to their policy you must browse with Safari WebKit, which is a nice juicy ~40% browser share target. In iOS 8 they allowed other apps to use the same JIT engine Safari does[1]. This makes me inclined to take them on their word when they say it was previously disallowed for security reasons (some early jailbreaks could be done just by visiting a web page, using security holes in Safari's javascript JIT). [1]: http://9to5mac.com/2014/06/03/ios-8-webkit-changes-finally-allow-all-apps-to-have-the-same-performance-as-safari/ http://9to5mac.com/2014/06/03/ios-8-webkit-changes-finally-a...
  - glhaynes 11y ago
    The jailbreaks for recent versions of iOS only allow jailbreaking unlocked devices, at which point security is already compromised. What? You must mean something else because unlocked devices aren't (necessarily) compromised.
    - johncolanduoni 11y ago
      > What? You must mean something else because unlocked devices aren't (necessarily) compromised. I mean compromised in the sense that the malicious party now (for example) has access to the user's email, and would be able to reset a whole host of passwords for online services (assuming they don't use 2FA or something similar, which most users don't). If they wanted to install a keylogger, or get saved passwords, then yes they still have to jailbreak my device. This xkcd is relevant: https://xkcd.com/1200/ https://xkcd.com/1200/
orangecat 11y ago
Which means they're making the wrong choice allowing Macs to run unapproved software, right?
JustSomeNobody 11y ago
I love Apple products, but please stop. Please. Do not be blind to the fact that Apple has to remove apps from the app store often due to security issues. And most of what you hear about on the Android side is either blown up in the media or because people side load apps from ... questionable sources.
- kenrikm 11y ago
  You're kidding me right? Android applications are allowed to run daemons that will continue to run if you like it or not. [1] Due to Google's lax review process basically you can write a virus and post it to the store.
  - 5ersi 11y ago
    demon (long running task in the background) != virus Virus' primary function is to replicate itself and infect other hosts. You can not simply install apps (or viruses) on other mobile devices without user intervention. Also viruses need access to system and/or other apps to be able to propagate itself, which is not the case on mobile platforms. None of that things is true for demons. Btw, iOS also has long running processes if you register proper functionality (VoIP, background download..) when submitting the app to App Store. Also iOS and Android apps can be awaken from the server and perform tasks without user noticing it.
  - JustSomeNobody 11y ago
    Why would you think allowing daemon processes are bad? You want notifications without having your app front and center, right? Need a daemon for that.
tadfisher 11y ago
I'm not sure knowing what users purchase makes the App Store any more secure. I'm pretty sure limiting what users can install on their devices is a different sort of tradeoff -- one of freedom for security.
oneJob 11y ago
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -B.Franklin, baby

nnutter 11y ago

Apple might just be better at covering it up. I would rather see it implemented like GateKeeper on OS X is. Safe store with the user having the power to decide if they leave the store or not.

fpgeek 11y ago
While I applaud the spirit, I don't think actually implementing it like GateKeeper is a good idea: http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/drop-dead-simple-exploit-completely-bypasses-macs-malware-gatekeeper/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/drop-dead-simple-exp...

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

The security benefits come mostly from curated package management in general, not limiting the device to one particular repository (the App Store).

javajosh 11y ago
I don't think the public is sophisticated enough to understand the decoupling of these two ideas. But I also think that one day, probably soon, it will be.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Technical users are members of the public, too. If you want to treat users like infants, then you should hereby completely forfeit any and all rights to complain about "tech shortages" and technical illiteracy of end users.
  - javajosh 11y ago
    So, this is a meta-comment because it's really just about your comment, but I feel compelled to point out the unnecessary negativity, and the unforced errors, so to speak, in representing my words, what I want, and what I've done. I'm not even sure what to call it when you create things I cannot do any longer to maintain consistency with my position - but without any evidence that I've done those things, or want to do those things. It's something like a straw-man argument. The right thing to do is to ignore it, but on the off-chance that you might be somewhat self-aware, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to catch yourself.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Apologies, the vitriol wasn't directed towards you, specifically. You simply gave me an opportune moment to express dissatisfaction with the paradoxical desire of simultaneously wanting more locked down devices in the name of convenience and "security", while also making programming and/or CS a compulsory school subject.
      - pyre 11y ago
        > "security" Why the scare quotes? Just because it doesn't provide 100% security doesn't mean that it provides no security.

gozo 11y ago

So we have forgotten XcodeGhost already or the iCloud hacks?

jolux 11y ago
Neither of which would be aided by opening the walled garden? Which isn't to say I don't think there are advantages to Android's model and that of more open package repositories in general, especially for power users. However most of Apple's base is people who don't care about openness or extra repositories, they want their iPhone to work with a minimum of fuss and not have to worry about malware like you do on Android. The fact that we can only point to a single (XcodeGhost) cromulent exploitation of the Apple App Store stack is a testament to how good Apple is at maintaining the relative security of the iOS ecosystem.
- gozo 11y ago
  The point is that security is not an inherent or necessarily attainable feature of a walled garden. Some people seem to think that just because Apple approves apps there isn't going to be any security issues. The approval process does prevent some security problems, and has some other features, but mobile security overwhelmingly comes from things like sandboxing.
  - jolux 11y ago
    Perhaps that's the case, but if it is, then it seems clear that Apple's sandbox is far better than Android's as well. Also, approving apps does cull out a range of malware, because it is human- and computer-analyzed before entry. As I said previously, this has its downsides, but it does make it harder to get malware into the iOS App Store. Not impossible, but harder.
IBM 11y ago
XcodeGhost wouldn't have happened if developers weren't able to disable Gatekeeper and the iCloud hack was done with phishing for security question answers. http://gawker.com/feds-seized-chicago-mans-computers-in-celeb-nude-leak-i-1709153721 http://gawker.com/feds-seized-chicago-mans-computers-in-cele...

devit 11y ago

Security? What security? Every single release with iOS has been totally broken security-wise, as can seen from the existence of jailbreaks. Apple doesn't even require seeing the source code, and so there is no way they can stop malicious applications written to evade detection from getting to the App Store. And thanks to their policy you must browse with Safari WebKit, which is a nice juicy ~40% browser share target. Of course, both Android and Windows Phone are broken too, since they also expose oversized monolithic kernels written in C to random applications, but at least Android doesn't require you to give up freedom to get non-security.

johncolanduoni 11y ago
> Every single release with iOS has been totally broken security-wise, as can seen from the existence of jailbreaks. The jailbreaks for recent versions of iOS only allow jailbreaking unlocked devices, at which point security is already compromised. > And thanks to their policy you must browse with Safari WebKit, which is a nice juicy ~40% browser share target. In iOS 8 they allowed other apps to use the same JIT engine Safari does[1]. This makes me inclined to take them on their word when they say it was previously disallowed for security reasons (some early jailbreaks could be done just by visiting a web page, using security holes in Safari's javascript JIT). [1]: http://9to5mac.com/2014/06/03/ios-8-webkit-changes-finally-allow-all-apps-to-have-the-same-performance-as-safari/ http://9to5mac.com/2014/06/03/ios-8-webkit-changes-finally-a...
- glhaynes 11y ago
  The jailbreaks for recent versions of iOS only allow jailbreaking unlocked devices, at which point security is already compromised. What? You must mean something else because unlocked devices aren't (necessarily) compromised.
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    > What? You must mean something else because unlocked devices aren't (necessarily) compromised. I mean compromised in the sense that the malicious party now (for example) has access to the user's email, and would be able to reset a whole host of passwords for online services (assuming they don't use 2FA or something similar, which most users don't). If they wanted to install a keylogger, or get saved passwords, then yes they still have to jailbreak my device. This xkcd is relevant: https://xkcd.com/1200/ https://xkcd.com/1200/

orangecat 11y ago

Which means they're making the wrong choice allowing Macs to run unapproved software, right?

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

I love Apple products, but please stop. Please. Do not be blind to the fact that Apple has to remove apps from the app store often due to security issues. And most of what you hear about on the Android side is either blown up in the media or because people side load apps from ... questionable sources.

kenrikm 11y ago
You're kidding me right? Android applications are allowed to run daemons that will continue to run if you like it or not. [1] Due to Google's lax review process basically you can write a virus and post it to the store.
- 5ersi 11y ago
  demon (long running task in the background) != virus Virus' primary function is to replicate itself and infect other hosts. You can not simply install apps (or viruses) on other mobile devices without user intervention. Also viruses need access to system and/or other apps to be able to propagate itself, which is not the case on mobile platforms. None of that things is true for demons. Btw, iOS also has long running processes if you register proper functionality (VoIP, background download..) when submitting the app to App Store. Also iOS and Android apps can be awaken from the server and perform tasks without user noticing it.
- JustSomeNobody 11y ago
  Why would you think allowing daemon processes are bad? You want notifications without having your app front and center, right? Need a daemon for that.

tadfisher 11y ago

I'm not sure knowing what users purchase makes the App Store any more secure. I'm pretty sure limiting what users can install on their devices is a different sort of tradeoff -- one of freedom for security.

oneJob 11y ago

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -B.Franklin, baby