4 ms·
> [...] to require publishers like Apple to push out backdoored OS updates or apps to targeted users (or physically seized devices, as in the San Bernardino cas
by cesarb 8y ago
> [...] to require publishers like Apple to push out backdoored OS updates or apps to targeted users (or physically seized devices, as in the San Bernardino case). Perhaps the ability to obtain such targeted warrants would be less socially harmful than increased use of the existing, but more intrusive, surveillance powers.
We've seen in the push to Windows 10 that, when automated updates are used in a harmful manner, people disable automated updates. The same would happen here: once it's been shown that the automated updated mechanism has been used to purposefully push a harmful update, people will start disabling automated updates.
Which means that Apple and Google have a good reason for opposing such requests.
(And that's before getting to the "elephant in the room": the same mechanism created for these requests can, and probably will, also be used by malicious actors.)
- chopin 8y agoCan malicious actors issue Windows 10 updates? I heard this for (improperly implemented) application updates but not for Windows 10 updates. Microsoft has strong incentives to prevent this and done a good job so far. I agree with you if MS would push a bad update it would be a PR desaster for MS.
- rainonmoon 8y agoWell, the other issue is that if the public lose trust in first-party updates, they're also potentially skipping security patches, making everyone more vulnerable on the whole. Obviously this might work in favour of one government's agenda, but equally opens those devices up to exploiting by anyone else (including foreign actors.)
- jacques_chester 8y agoWindows rejects updates that aren't signed by known keys. Those keys are probably some of the most valuable 1s and 0s in the world.