11 ms·

Apple's answers repeatedly suggest that the reason they require third-party browsers to use WebKit and JavaScriptCore is for privacy and security: > It is not

Apple's answers repeatedly suggest that the reason they require third-party browsers to use WebKit and JavaScriptCore is for privacy and security: > It is not our experience that competing web browsers have typically offered enhanced privacy or security that would protect users as adequately as our WebKit protections. Google pioneered the out-of-process architecture that Safari now uses, developed the Safe Browsing program that Safari also uses, drove the adoption of HTTPS, put pressure on misbehaving certificate authorities and shepherded certificate pinning and then Certificate Transparency, and found many vulnerabilities in WebKit through security research that Apple was not itself doing. Moreover, on the desktop, Chrome and Firefox both have automatic update channels that allow them to push out security fixes much more rapidly than Apple's heavy OS updates. (On iOS, they would be limited by Apple's App Store approval process.) All this to say, I'm skeptical of the suggestion that a Blink-powered Chrome for iOS would not "protect users as adequately as our WebKit protections." One thing to note: JavaScriptCore has special powers on iOS in that it can allocate new blocks of executable memory during just-in-time compilation, greatly improving its performance. A third-party JavaScript engine would be much slower without this ability, but granting the capability to third-party engines would jeopardize the security architecture of iOS.

saagarjha 7y ago
I'm fairly sure Apple's security spin comes exclusively from the fact that apps on the App Store cannot dynamically allocate executable memory.
- hmage 7y ago
  I think you got that backwards. apple is blocking exec flag on mmap'ed blocks because of security concerns. Malware _relies_ on that ability to avoid static analysis.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Is that not what I said?
    - msbarnett 7y ago
      The way you phrased it can be interpreted as the inability to allocate executable memory is for unrelated reasons but is being “spun” as a security plus post-hoc, rather than the conscious consequence of a decision to prioritize security. The block on allocating executing memory flows from the security concern, rather than security “spin” flowing from the allocation restriction.
henryfjordan 7y ago
This is a outright lie by Apple. They know other entities are capable of browser security. See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-iphone-hack-discovered-mass-ios-hacking-attack-sustained-over-at-least-two-years-2019-08-30/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-iphone-hack-discovered-m...
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  How in the world can an opinion be a lie? They didn't objectively state that other entities aren't capable of it. They literally said they felt those companies wouldn't protect their users as well as them.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    > It is not our experience that competing web browsers have typically offered enhanced privacy or security that would protect users as adequately as our WebKit protections. Per the article I shared, there ARE competitors to Apple that rival their privacy and security skills. Those competitors have helped Apple improve. It is an outright lie for Apple to say "it is not our experience..." I get that my argument is mostly pedantic, but even as an "opinion" it only holds if Apple is delusional.
    - zepto 7y ago
      Google has proven that they cannot maintain even a MacOS browser by hosing Macs via their update mechanism.
Despegar 7y ago
Apple is plainly saying that they are best positioned to protect iOS users privacy and security. One way they do that is by not allowing any app to use anything other than WebKit. If there's a flaw in some alternative browser that iOS app developers now have a dependency on, Apple would be unable to do anything about it other than wait for that other browser vendor to ship an update. >All this to say, I'm skeptical of the suggestion that a Blink-powered Chrome for iOS would not "protect users as adequately as our WebKit protections." Maybe Google is excellent at updating their browser to address security issues, but Apple's concern isn't purely security. It's also privacy. And Safari's track record on privacy technologies is longer and better than everyone. Furthermore, Apple sells integrated products. They don't sell operating systems, browsers, app stores, and NFC chips. They sell a finished good that incorporates all of those things and more. They take end to end responsibility for their products and it would be frankly uncharacteristic of Apple to have any other position than extreme self-reliance.
- izacus 7y ago
  You really don't need to go this far out on a limb to defend Apple, their lawyers will do that better than you.
- rgovostes 7y ago
  > Safari's track record on privacy technologies is longer and better than everyone. Certainly I would say Apple is doing better on privacy than Google, but when it comes to the browser specifically, I don't think they're doing significantly better. Google, for instance, pioneered Incognito mode (edit: nope, Safari beat them). They developed and deployed their privacy-preserving telemetry tool RAPPOR in Chrome a few years before Apple adopted the technology for anything. Chrome allowed you to configure DuckDuckGo as your default search engine pretty much from the beginning (as long as you did it manually), whereas Safari took years to allow it. Safari has been slowly shutting out many forms of third-party extensions which are frequently for ad and tracker blocking. (To be fair Apple has a design that reduces the amount of trust you need to put in an ad blocker to see your browsing behavior, but it is far more limited, and likely sees far lower adoption.) I do think Apple is prioritizing privacy-protecting features higher than Google is, so it would not surprise me to see Safari come ahead with features like Intelligent Tracking Prevention which conflict with Google's business interests.
lmkg 7y ago
I agree that Chrome would protect users' security (privacy is a different issue). But that's one browser, not an arbitrary browser. Could you allow Chrome without allowing other browsers with lesser pedigree? Keep in mind that several of Congress' questions are asking whether Apple provides privileged access to favored partners.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Could you allow Chrome without allowing other browsers with lesser pedigree? Sure, you could have security auditing standards required for apps with certain functionality, including browsers, and apply them in a neutral manner across vendors. That might structurally favor larger firms, but wouldn't favor partners.
aaomidi 7y ago
The risk should be up to the consumer to take imho.
- scarface74 7y ago
  That worked so well for Android and Windows....
  - 43920 7y ago
    I mean, it did? Right now on Android or Windows, you have multiple different high-quality browsers you can pick from (Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Brave, etc), and because they all have to compete with each other, they're continually improving the user experience. In particular, Firefox and Brave have been able to add improved privacy protections by modifying the rendering engine, which isn't possible on iOS.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      I’m more replying to the entire notion that the user should be able to determine whether they are using secure software instead of the operating system enforcing it. How will the user know whether software is secure? But you actually trust Google to protect people’s privacy?
  - greggman2 7y ago
    Seems to be working for MacOS
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Only because hardly anyone bothers to write malware for the Mac.
scarface74 7y ago
It’s not like one of Chrome’s updates completely hosed Macs.... https://support.google.com/chrome/thread/15235262?hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/thread/15235262?hl=en
- bla3 7y ago
  It hosed macs that had SIP disabled and /var world-writable. Not that that's an excuse, but few machines were affected by this.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    The point being that users can’t just trust apps from reputable sources. Even if not being purposefully malicious, third parties get sloppy.
- greggman2 7y ago
  what is your point? Apple's own bugs deleted entire hard drives. https://www.wired.com/2001/11/glitch-in-itunes-deletes-drives/ https://www.wired.com/2001/11/glitch-in-itunes-deletes-drive...
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Wow. From 2001?
dhx 7y ago
I read Apple's responses as "We want to protect the reputation of a brand of device which is marketed as user friendly, secure and private". If they open up the device to allowing anyone to deploy buggy software on, there will be a greater incidence of headlines similar to "iPhones with XYZ browser can be hacked!!", impacting the overall brand reputation for Apple products.
Abishek_Muthian 7y ago
This also renders iOS devices useless for even basic browsing after the OS updates ends. Where as, a 7 year old Android device which hasn't received any OS updates can still use latest Firefox with regular updates.

saagarjha 7y ago

I'm fairly sure Apple's security spin comes exclusively from the fact that apps on the App Store cannot dynamically allocate executable memory.

hmage 7y ago
I think you got that backwards. apple is blocking exec flag on mmap'ed blocks because of security concerns. Malware _relies_ on that ability to avoid static analysis.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Is that not what I said?
  - msbarnett 7y ago
    The way you phrased it can be interpreted as the inability to allocate executable memory is for unrelated reasons but is being “spun” as a security plus post-hoc, rather than the conscious consequence of a decision to prioritize security. The block on allocating executing memory flows from the security concern, rather than security “spin” flowing from the allocation restriction.

henryfjordan 7y ago

This is a outright lie by Apple. They know other entities are capable of browser security. See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-iphone-hack-discovered-mass-ios-hacking-attack-sustained-over-at-least-two-years-2019-08-30/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-iphone-hack-discovered-m...

dkonofalski 7y ago
How in the world can an opinion be a lie? They didn't objectively state that other entities aren't capable of it. They literally said they felt those companies wouldn't protect their users as well as them.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  > It is not our experience that competing web browsers have typically offered enhanced privacy or security that would protect users as adequately as our WebKit protections. Per the article I shared, there ARE competitors to Apple that rival their privacy and security skills. Those competitors have helped Apple improve. It is an outright lie for Apple to say "it is not our experience..." I get that my argument is mostly pedantic, but even as an "opinion" it only holds if Apple is delusional.
  - zepto 7y ago
    Google has proven that they cannot maintain even a MacOS browser by hosing Macs via their update mechanism.

Despegar 7y ago

Apple is plainly saying that they are best positioned to protect iOS users privacy and security. One way they do that is by not allowing any app to use anything other than WebKit. If there's a flaw in some alternative browser that iOS app developers now have a dependency on, Apple would be unable to do anything about it other than wait for that other browser vendor to ship an update. >All this to say, I'm skeptical of the suggestion that a Blink-powered Chrome for iOS would not "protect users as adequately as our WebKit protections." Maybe Google is excellent at updating their browser to address security issues, but Apple's concern isn't purely security. It's also privacy. And Safari's track record on privacy technologies is longer and better than everyone. Furthermore, Apple sells integrated products. They don't sell operating systems, browsers, app stores, and NFC chips. They sell a finished good that incorporates all of those things and more. They take end to end responsibility for their products and it would be frankly uncharacteristic of Apple to have any other position than extreme self-reliance.

izacus 7y ago
You really don't need to go this far out on a limb to defend Apple, their lawyers will do that better than you.
rgovostes 7y ago
> Safari's track record on privacy technologies is longer and better than everyone. Certainly I would say Apple is doing better on privacy than Google, but when it comes to the browser specifically, I don't think they're doing significantly better. Google, for instance, pioneered Incognito mode (edit: nope, Safari beat them). They developed and deployed their privacy-preserving telemetry tool RAPPOR in Chrome a few years before Apple adopted the technology for anything. Chrome allowed you to configure DuckDuckGo as your default search engine pretty much from the beginning (as long as you did it manually), whereas Safari took years to allow it. Safari has been slowly shutting out many forms of third-party extensions which are frequently for ad and tracker blocking. (To be fair Apple has a design that reduces the amount of trust you need to put in an ad blocker to see your browsing behavior, but it is far more limited, and likely sees far lower adoption.) I do think Apple is prioritizing privacy-protecting features higher than Google is, so it would not surprise me to see Safari come ahead with features like Intelligent Tracking Prevention which conflict with Google's business interests.

lmkg 7y ago

I agree that Chrome would protect users' security (privacy is a different issue). But that's one browser, not an arbitrary browser. Could you allow Chrome without allowing other browsers with lesser pedigree? Keep in mind that several of Congress' questions are asking whether Apple provides privileged access to favored partners.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Could you allow Chrome without allowing other browsers with lesser pedigree? Sure, you could have security auditing standards required for apps with certain functionality, including browsers, and apply them in a neutral manner across vendors. That might structurally favor larger firms, but wouldn't favor partners.

aaomidi 7y ago

The risk should be up to the consumer to take imho.

scarface74 7y ago
That worked so well for Android and Windows....
- 43920 7y ago
  I mean, it did? Right now on Android or Windows, you have multiple different high-quality browsers you can pick from (Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Brave, etc), and because they all have to compete with each other, they're continually improving the user experience. In particular, Firefox and Brave have been able to add improved privacy protections by modifying the rendering engine, which isn't possible on iOS.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    I’m more replying to the entire notion that the user should be able to determine whether they are using secure software instead of the operating system enforcing it. How will the user know whether software is secure? But you actually trust Google to protect people’s privacy?
- greggman2 7y ago
  Seems to be working for MacOS
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Only because hardly anyone bothers to write malware for the Mac.

scarface74 7y ago

It’s not like one of Chrome’s updates completely hosed Macs.... https://support.google.com/chrome/thread/15235262?hl=en https://support.google.com/chrome/thread/15235262?hl=en

bla3 7y ago
It hosed macs that had SIP disabled and /var world-writable. Not that that's an excuse, but few machines were affected by this.
- scarface74 7y ago
  The point being that users can’t just trust apps from reputable sources. Even if not being purposefully malicious, third parties get sloppy.
greggman2 7y ago
what is your point? Apple's own bugs deleted entire hard drives. https://www.wired.com/2001/11/glitch-in-itunes-deletes-drives/ https://www.wired.com/2001/11/glitch-in-itunes-deletes-drive...
- scarface74 7y ago
  Wow. From 2001?

dhx 7y ago

I read Apple's responses as "We want to protect the reputation of a brand of device which is marketed as user friendly, secure and private". If they open up the device to allowing anyone to deploy buggy software on, there will be a greater incidence of headlines similar to "iPhones with XYZ browser can be hacked!!", impacting the overall brand reputation for Apple products.

Abishek_Muthian 7y ago

This also renders iOS devices useless for even basic browsing after the OS updates ends. Where as, a 7 year old Android device which hasn't received any OS updates can still use latest Firefox with regular updates.