3 ms·
> Terminal.app comes pre-installed in every Apple computer, it is developed by software engineers who work for the same company that makes the entire operating
by gridlockd 7y ago
> Terminal.app comes pre-installed in every Apple computer, it is developed by software engineers who work for the same company that makes the entire operating system. Why do I need an alert asking for permission to execute this command: “cd ~/Downloads/” ?
Because differentiating between that command and any command that may be harmful is NP-Hard. Like I said, these kinks will have to get ironed out. Terminal is UNIX legacy and that "security" model was broken from day one. The sooner we get rid of it, the better.
> The point is that Apple is focusing on increasing the security of the system the wrong way, these alerts overwhelm regular users to the point they will mindlessly click “Allow” every time an alert pops up, hackers will take advantage of this and assume users will grant system-wide access to their malicious programs.
You don't get system-wide access, that's the point of asking you for every folder. Let me ask you, what's the alternative to asking for permission? If I accidentally give a malicious program permission to do something, how is that worse than just giving it that permission without being asked?
- saagarjha 7y ago> Because differentiating between that command and any command that may be harmful is NP-Hard. Turing complete.
- gridlockd 7y agoFor an input string of finite size and with certain commands restricted, I don't believe that proving harmlessness is equivalent to the halting problem. I'm not sure if NP-Hard is the right classification for the more restricted case though.
- saagarjha 7y agoIt's still Turing complete. In general, proving pretty much any non-trivial property about a general-purpose (and I mean this term very loosely: you have to strip away a lot of things from your favorite language before this is no longer true) programming language is.