2 ms·

There's two successful systems I know of out in the real world, Linux distros that rely on code review and iOS that relies on code review and sand boxing. There

by flukus 8y ago

There's two successful systems I know of out in the real world, Linux distros that rely on code review and iOS that relies on code review and sand boxing. There's two failures, android that relies purely on sandboxing and windows, which was too gimped by sandboxing to take off. > But relying on code review It's not just code review, it's having a degree of seperation between the developer and the packager/authorizer.

skybrian 8y ago
Some things are more successful than others, but it's not a one-bit distinction. Arguing over whether to set the "success" bit would be silly. But it seems arbitrary to say that Android is a failure when it has more users than iOS or Linux. Browsers are another important example of sandboxing.
- flukus 8y ago
  > But it seems arbitrary to say that Android is a failure when it has more users than iOS or Linux. I'm not saying android is a failure, I'm saying it's sandboxing has not prevented malware and spyware being ubiquitous. This was a problem way back before android itself was a huge success. > Browsers are another important example of sandboxing. This has been pretty effective at preventing malware, but the web is a privacy nightmare and constantly getting worse.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Ok, I see what you mean. Caveats: Android doesn't rely solely on sandboxing. They also do automatic scanning and do often find stuff [1]. I also wouldn't say malware is so bad it's "ubiquitous" on Android since it's in the news quite often but I don't think the average user is likely to encounter it? My take on it is that current-generation sandboxes have permissions designed for security (preventing takeover by hackers), not privacy. In particular, preventing an app from phoning home isn't something they try to do. You can't have privacy without security so sandboxing is a prerequisite, though. [1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2019/02/how-we-fought-bad-apps-and-malicious.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2019/02/how-we-fou...

by flukus 8y ago

skybrian 8y ago

Some things are more successful than others, but it's not a one-bit distinction. Arguing over whether to set the "success" bit would be silly. But it seems arbitrary to say that Android is a failure when it has more users than iOS or Linux. Browsers are another important example of sandboxing.

flukus 8y ago
> But it seems arbitrary to say that Android is a failure when it has more users than iOS or Linux. I'm not saying android is a failure, I'm saying it's sandboxing has not prevented malware and spyware being ubiquitous. This was a problem way back before android itself was a huge success. > Browsers are another important example of sandboxing. This has been pretty effective at preventing malware, but the web is a privacy nightmare and constantly getting worse.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Ok, I see what you mean. Caveats: Android doesn't rely solely on sandboxing. They also do automatic scanning and do often find stuff [1]. I also wouldn't say malware is so bad it's "ubiquitous" on Android since it's in the news quite often but I don't think the average user is likely to encounter it? My take on it is that current-generation sandboxes have permissions designed for security (preventing takeover by hackers), not privacy. In particular, preventing an app from phoning home isn't something they try to do. You can't have privacy without security so sandboxing is a prerequisite, though. [1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2019/02/how-we-fought-bad-apps-and-malicious.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2019/02/how-we-fou...