5 ms·

Exactly. Apple is responsible for a huge loss of freedom in the War On General Purpose Computing. This "appification" is exactly what Cory Doctorow was talking

by pdkl95 11y ago

Exactly. Apple is responsible for a huge loss of freedom in the War On General Purpose Computing. This "appification" is exactly what Cory Doctorow was talking about in his famous essay[1]. We are already beginning to see some of the nastier effects that we warned about[2] with, for example, John Deere's attempt to retain ownership[3]. Apologists will complain that you can turn of SIP (or jailbreak your phone) to regain control over your computer, but that isn't possible for most people. Installing certain types of software went from "run the installer" to "follow these complicated technical instructions" (or worse). What I find more worrying is how easily technical people are fooled into supporting this loss of freedom. Scream "security" and suddenly it's ok for Apple to have root but not the supposed "owner" of the device? Of course, they know how to disable the restrictions or install a jailbreak, so these problems don't apply to the technological priesthood - it's normal people that have to live with the restrictions. Well, this hubris will not last - once Apple can starts using the new Trusted Computing[4] features on new CPUs (such as SGX[5]), good luck regaining control. It would be nice if more people actually bothered thinking about long-term consequences. [1] http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypRYpVKc5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypRYpVKc5Y [3] http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/ http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/ [4] one example: http://i.imgur.com/rjbzWyB.jpg http://i.imgur.com/rjbzWyB.jpg [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10754170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10754170

2trill2spill 11y ago
If a user can't turn off SIP they probably shouldn't turn off SIP, SIP is great for the vast majority of users ie normal users, and for those who don't want SIP it's easy to turn off. Basically I'm saying only technical people should be turning SIP off. Note, that I'm biased for SIP because I'm implementing it for FreeBSD, even though I know I will be turning it off because SIP impedes my fuzzer development.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > Basically I'm saying only technical people should be turning SIP off. No, you're saying only technical people are allowed to use a General Purpose Computer, and everyone should use an appliance. You might want to consider what side you're fighting for in the War On General Purpose Computing.
  - 2trill2spill 11y ago
    Why would a person turn off a feature they don't understand? Besides the only people who have issues with or even know what SIP is, are technical people. The average mac osx user doesn't even know about the hidden directories that SIP is protecting or what dtrace even is. If apple made it so SIP could not be turned off I would be with you on this, but you can turn off SIP. Also what war on general computing? If a person want's full control of their operating system they can use one of the free open source ones like FreeBSD, one of the thousands of Linux distros, illumos, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc, etc.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      This doesn't have a damn thing to do with dtrace. This is about Apple asserting that they own your computer, de facto, not you. Assumptions you're making: * That the ability to disable SIP will always be available, forever, even though Apple has incentives to continue making their products more an "applicance" and less a "computer". I already said there are hardware features in new CPUs that are specifically designed to make that impossible. (see previous [5]) * That SIP will continue, forever into the future, to protect only those hidden directories. * That Apple always knows what is better for the user, and won't exploit that power. > turned off Why is it that any time someone starts grabbing for power, there are always people that say we should ignore it because there is some workaround, or it's only an insignificant amount of power? Power is accumulated in small steps, with the hope that nobody notices until iti is too late. As an analogy, you might say that I'm warning you that someone seems to be placing some gas cans around your property, and you might want to stop them before they decide to light a match. Meanwhile, you (and quite a few other people) are saying it's no big deal because you can just step over those gas cans - they aren't blocking the walkway much. Apple is taking your root access away, and you're fine with it. They are saying that they de facto own your computer, not you. Yet you're fine with it. > Also what war on general computing? I'm somewhat shocked. All I can say is you have quite a bit of catching up to do. For the answer to that question, see my previous [1] and [2]. For [1], I linked to Doctorow's essay, but he links to his original lecture at 28C3 if you prefer. That lecture introduces the War, while [2] continues with a discussion of why we need to solve this problem now, as the ramifications extend much further than Apple and the ability to gain root. Again, you might want to think long and hard about the long-term consequences of giving up root access to Apple. Security can be provided for the user without handing control over to Apple.
ryannielsen 11y ago
> Apple can [sic] starts using the new Trusted Computing[4] features on new CPUs (such as SGX[5]), good luck regaining control. It seems the apocalypse came to pass a while back, with the Secure Enclave in Apple's A7 processors. > Of course, they know how to disable the restrictions or install a jailbreak, so these problems don't apply to the technological priesthood - it's normal people that have to live with the restrictions. Here's the funny thing: normal people benefit from those restrictions. Without them, their devices – the ones you insist they should own – would quickly become someone else's: the attacker's. It would be awesome if people started thinking about long-term consequences. Honest question: do you hate root? Should all processes run with equal privileges? Does the kernel have an evil and undesired permissions level?
- userbinator 11y ago
  do you hate root? Should all processes run with equal privileges? Does the kernel have an evil and undesired permissions level? The key difference here is that root is well known to be the all-powerful user, the one that really owns the system, while SIP is Apple's attempt at removing the power that root should have.
  - chc 11y ago
    Given that Apple could have actually taken away root's power if they wanted to, it seems kind of inaccurate to call this an attempt to do so. They have given the user the option to have root on or off with a default of "off." They didn't attempt to disable root and fail. I understand your concerns about taking away user power, but this doesn't seem to be that. The user still has the power to do the same things, they just have to decide that they want it. You could just as well say that not making the system files world-writable takes away the user's power, but in fact it's just locked behind a door that the user has the power to open.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - justincormack 11y ago
    Linux can run rootless, in capabilities only mode. Linux has destroyed your ownership of your computer too.
0x0 11y ago
No need to single out Apple. Windows has been requiring signed kernel drivers by default for probably at least as long. Both systems offer ways to disable restrictions and reconfigure the systems for kernel development. Not seeing the big deal with requiring developers to jump through a couple of hoops to disable security features that are genuinely useful for regular end users.

by pdkl95 11y ago

2trill2spill 11y ago

If a user can't turn off SIP they probably shouldn't turn off SIP, SIP is great for the vast majority of users ie normal users, and for those who don't want SIP it's easy to turn off. Basically I'm saying only technical people should be turning SIP off. Note, that I'm biased for SIP because I'm implementing it for FreeBSD, even though I know I will be turning it off because SIP impedes my fuzzer development.

pdkl95 11y ago
> Basically I'm saying only technical people should be turning SIP off. No, you're saying only technical people are allowed to use a General Purpose Computer, and everyone should use an appliance. You might want to consider what side you're fighting for in the War On General Purpose Computing.
- 2trill2spill 11y ago
  Why would a person turn off a feature they don't understand? Besides the only people who have issues with or even know what SIP is, are technical people. The average mac osx user doesn't even know about the hidden directories that SIP is protecting or what dtrace even is. If apple made it so SIP could not be turned off I would be with you on this, but you can turn off SIP. Also what war on general computing? If a person want's full control of their operating system they can use one of the free open source ones like FreeBSD, one of the thousands of Linux distros, illumos, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc, etc.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    This doesn't have a damn thing to do with dtrace. This is about Apple asserting that they own your computer, de facto, not you. Assumptions you're making: * That the ability to disable SIP will always be available, forever, even though Apple has incentives to continue making their products more an "applicance" and less a "computer". I already said there are hardware features in new CPUs that are specifically designed to make that impossible. (see previous [5]) * That SIP will continue, forever into the future, to protect only those hidden directories. * That Apple always knows what is better for the user, and won't exploit that power. > turned off Why is it that any time someone starts grabbing for power, there are always people that say we should ignore it because there is some workaround, or it's only an insignificant amount of power? Power is accumulated in small steps, with the hope that nobody notices until iti is too late. As an analogy, you might say that I'm warning you that someone seems to be placing some gas cans around your property, and you might want to stop them before they decide to light a match. Meanwhile, you (and quite a few other people) are saying it's no big deal because you can just step over those gas cans - they aren't blocking the walkway much. Apple is taking your root access away, and you're fine with it. They are saying that they de facto own your computer, not you. Yet you're fine with it. > Also what war on general computing? I'm somewhat shocked. All I can say is you have quite a bit of catching up to do. For the answer to that question, see my previous [1] and [2]. For [1], I linked to Doctorow's essay, but he links to his original lecture at 28C3 if you prefer. That lecture introduces the War, while [2] continues with a discussion of why we need to solve this problem now, as the ramifications extend much further than Apple and the ability to gain root. Again, you might want to think long and hard about the long-term consequences of giving up root access to Apple. Security can be provided for the user without handing control over to Apple.

ryannielsen 11y ago

> Apple can [sic] starts using the new Trusted Computing[4] features on new CPUs (such as SGX[5]), good luck regaining control. It seems the apocalypse came to pass a while back, with the Secure Enclave in Apple's A7 processors. > Of course, they know how to disable the restrictions or install a jailbreak, so these problems don't apply to the technological priesthood - it's normal people that have to live with the restrictions. Here's the funny thing: normal people benefit from those restrictions. Without them, their devices – the ones you insist they should own – would quickly become someone else's: the attacker's. It would be awesome if people started thinking about long-term consequences. Honest question: do you hate root? Should all processes run with equal privileges? Does the kernel have an evil and undesired permissions level?

userbinator 11y ago
do you hate root? Should all processes run with equal privileges? Does the kernel have an evil and undesired permissions level? The key difference here is that root is well known to be the all-powerful user, the one that really owns the system, while SIP is Apple's attempt at removing the power that root should have.
- chc 11y ago
  Given that Apple could have actually taken away root's power if they wanted to, it seems kind of inaccurate to call this an attempt to do so. They have given the user the option to have root on or off with a default of "off." They didn't attempt to disable root and fail. I understand your concerns about taking away user power, but this doesn't seem to be that. The user still has the power to do the same things, they just have to decide that they want it. You could just as well say that not making the system files world-writable takes away the user's power, but in fact it's just locked behind a door that the user has the power to open.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- justincormack 11y ago
  Linux can run rootless, in capabilities only mode. Linux has destroyed your ownership of your computer too.

0x0 11y ago

No need to single out Apple. Windows has been requiring signed kernel drivers by default for probably at least as long. Both systems offer ways to disable restrictions and reconfigure the systems for kernel development. Not seeing the big deal with requiring developers to jump through a couple of hoops to disable security features that are genuinely useful for regular end users.