3 ms·

FYI, it doesn't serve exactly the same purpose, but macOS Mojave requires a permission prompt for software to access the camera and mic. Of course, if a progra

FYI, it doesn't serve exactly the same purpose, but macOS Mojave requires a permission prompt for software to access the camera and mic. Of course, if a program has access to it (including Apple's own permission-exempt software) an unauthorized app may be able to use the authorized one as a route around the sandbox: https://objective-see.com/blog/blog_0x2F.html https://objective-see.com/blog/blog_0x2F.html But Mojave also added an "APP_1 wants to control APP_2" permission prompt, so I don't think that workaround is typically possible. When the malware tries to use Quicktime to run a video/audio capture, the AppleScript should trigger a "Badware.app wants to control Quicktime" permission prompt. https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/335848/mojave-disable-or-control-the-some-app-name-wants-access-to-control-another https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/335848/mojave-disa...

dwighttk 8y ago
I've seen that prompt twice since I updated and one time I could figure out why it was happening, the other time I couldn't. I'm not sure what to tell my friends who ask me about Mac stuff to do when they see that prompt.
Bartweiss 8y ago
This is the sort of thing that should absolutely be baked in at the lowest reasonable level. Browser-level requests for camera/mic permission are obviously nice, and it's even better to see OSX offer the request to catch more cases and prevent workarounds. Requests for control transfers are also an obvious improvement; at a certain point the easiest way to curtail sandbox escapes without restricting normal functionality is to just talk to the user. Honestly, a same-circuit "camera on" light is my preferred solution to this whole question, and I'd be happy to see the mic get a separate light or be tied into the camera circuit.
- danieldk 8y ago
  Honestly, a same-circuit "camera on" light is my preferred solution to this whole question, and I'd be happy to see the mic get a separate light or be tied into the camera circuit. The problem is that this doesn't help if you have a desktop machine, but you are not literally sitting behind it to notice the light. Software could still eavesdrop on conversations during that time. The nice thing about Micro Snitch is that it also keeps a log. Ideally, we would of course have all these levels of protection: a light, a physical switch to disconnect the camera and mic, sandboxing with camera/mic permissions, and logs like those provided by Micro Snitch.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > This is the sort of thing that should absolutely be baked in at the lowest reasonable level. It's baked into the kernel, if that's what you're asking.
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    Yes - my reaction is that Micro Snitch is great in the absence of a kernel feature, but this sort of thing is best handled at the kernel and hardware levels.

dwighttk 8y ago

I've seen that prompt twice since I updated and one time I could figure out why it was happening, the other time I couldn't. I'm not sure what to tell my friends who ask me about Mac stuff to do when they see that prompt.

Bartweiss 8y ago

This is the sort of thing that should absolutely be baked in at the lowest reasonable level. Browser-level requests for camera/mic permission are obviously nice, and it's even better to see OSX offer the request to catch more cases and prevent workarounds. Requests for control transfers are also an obvious improvement; at a certain point the easiest way to curtail sandbox escapes without restricting normal functionality is to just talk to the user. Honestly, a same-circuit "camera on" light is my preferred solution to this whole question, and I'd be happy to see the mic get a separate light or be tied into the camera circuit.

danieldk 8y ago
Honestly, a same-circuit "camera on" light is my preferred solution to this whole question, and I'd be happy to see the mic get a separate light or be tied into the camera circuit. The problem is that this doesn't help if you have a desktop machine, but you are not literally sitting behind it to notice the light. Software could still eavesdrop on conversations during that time. The nice thing about Micro Snitch is that it also keeps a log. Ideally, we would of course have all these levels of protection: a light, a physical switch to disconnect the camera and mic, sandboxing with camera/mic permissions, and logs like those provided by Micro Snitch.
saagarjha 8y ago
> This is the sort of thing that should absolutely be baked in at the lowest reasonable level. It's baked into the kernel, if that's what you're asking.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  Yes - my reaction is that Micro Snitch is great in the absence of a kernel feature, but this sort of thing is best handled at the kernel and hardware levels.