3 ms·

To paraphrase an infamous quote: Apple have root. What good is any signing if you can't trust the OS? There are a myriad of ways they could undermine the verif

To paraphrase an infamous quote: Apple have root. What good is any signing if you can't trust the OS? There are a myriad of ways they could undermine the verification.

SXX 8y ago
I'm not Apple fanboy in any way, but how exactly trusting Apple to hold root access to your system is any worse than trusting to baseband in any other smartphone? It's just whole chain of trust so fundamentally broken so there no way you can trust to any device and Apple at least not any worse here. In literally every phone baseband is not isolated, run it's own OS and can do anything to OS even if you have root. On top of that every ARM SOC have TrustZone that supposedly might also run any code and you have zero control over it.
- ChrisSD 8y ago
  I think you misunderstand me. If "new management" were to take over Apple and you no longer trusted them, why would you continue to trust their OS? In that scenario code signing is irrelevant because an untrusted OS can undermine it.
JohnStrangeII 8y ago
Your position is based on an (implicit) false dilemma. It's perfectly possible to "trust" Apple in the sense that you use their operating system and hardware after you've bought it. This kind of "trust" is similar to "agreeing with an EULA or TOS". There is not much of an alternative to it. This does not imply that you therefore must also trust Apple as the one and only broker and manager of certificates for software running on your machine. You could, for example, suspect that Apple might revoke a certificate for some developer that creates a controversial product (e.g. a p2p client) or some product that competes with Apple products or some future plans of features. For example, Apple has in the past essentially copied innovative apps and revoked licences for the app store of the original developers. In theory, Apple could just erase such applications, since they "have root". In practice, they wouldn't do so. But they would and will revoke certificates and app store licences. The new rules also make alternative app stores impossible, of course, although I'm not sure they were possible before. In a nutshell, trust != trust. You can trust a hardware or software maker in some respects but not in others. The primary goal of Gatekeeper is monopolization of secure access, not security.
- ChrisSD 8y ago
  Sure, I agree that I may not necessarily want to trust the organisations they trust or indeed mistrust the organisations they mistrust. Or to put it another way, my web of trust may differ from theirs. But the OP was for example talking about potentially wanting to "exclude Apple" which would, IMHO, be nonsensical on Apple's OS.
- vsl 8y ago
  > For example, Apple has in the past essentially copied innovative apps and revoked licences for the app store of the original developers. Source? I develop in the Apple ecosystem and never heard of this. Would be scandalous. “Heavily inspired” Apple apps, yes. Revoking certificates or access to developer program (which I guess you must mean by “App Store licenses”, because there’s no such thing otherwise), not that I’m aware of.

To paraphrase an infamous quote: Apple have root. What good is any signing if you can't trust the OS? There are a myriad of ways they could undermine the verification.

SXX 8y ago

I'm not Apple fanboy in any way, but how exactly trusting Apple to hold root access to your system is any worse than trusting to baseband in any other smartphone? It's just whole chain of trust so fundamentally broken so there no way you can trust to any device and Apple at least not any worse here. In literally every phone baseband is not isolated, run it's own OS and can do anything to OS even if you have root. On top of that every ARM SOC have TrustZone that supposedly might also run any code and you have zero control over it.

ChrisSD 8y ago
I think you misunderstand me. If "new management" were to take over Apple and you no longer trusted them, why would you continue to trust their OS? In that scenario code signing is irrelevant because an untrusted OS can undermine it.

JohnStrangeII 8y ago

Your position is based on an (implicit) false dilemma. It's perfectly possible to "trust" Apple in the sense that you use their operating system and hardware after you've bought it. This kind of "trust" is similar to "agreeing with an EULA or TOS". There is not much of an alternative to it. This does not imply that you therefore must also trust Apple as the one and only broker and manager of certificates for software running on your machine. You could, for example, suspect that Apple might revoke a certificate for some developer that creates a controversial product (e.g. a p2p client) or some product that competes with Apple products or some future plans of features. For example, Apple has in the past essentially copied innovative apps and revoked licences for the app store of the original developers. In theory, Apple could just erase such applications, since they "have root". In practice, they wouldn't do so. But they would and will revoke certificates and app store licences. The new rules also make alternative app stores impossible, of course, although I'm not sure they were possible before. In a nutshell, trust != trust. You can trust a hardware or software maker in some respects but not in others. The primary goal of Gatekeeper is monopolization of secure access, not security.

ChrisSD 8y ago
Sure, I agree that I may not necessarily want to trust the organisations they trust or indeed mistrust the organisations they mistrust. Or to put it another way, my web of trust may differ from theirs. But the OP was for example talking about potentially wanting to "exclude Apple" which would, IMHO, be nonsensical on Apple's OS.
vsl 8y ago
> For example, Apple has in the past essentially copied innovative apps and revoked licences for the app store of the original developers. Source? I develop in the Apple ecosystem and never heard of this. Would be scandalous. “Heavily inspired” Apple apps, yes. Revoking certificates or access to developer program (which I guess you must mean by “App Store licenses”, because there’s no such thing otherwise), not that I’m aware of.