3 ms·

And when there is a security vulnerability which exploits webkit by just visiting a website, one has to wait till Apple releases an OS update(if it decides to a

And when there is a security vulnerability which exploits webkit by just visiting a website, one has to wait till Apple releases an OS update(if it decides to acknowledge and fix it[1]), where as one on Firefox 'if Apple had allowed its own engine' could get updated via the AppStore. What Apple has done with the trackers is commendable, but the security argument when it comes to browsers is always in favour of allowing browsers with their own engines; which apple doesn't. [1]https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/apple-takes-flak-for-disputing-ios-security-bombshell-dropped-by-google/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/09/apple...

hvmonk 7y ago
wdyt about the frequency of security patches vs you getting tracked on all sites you visit? Not to say Apple doesn't care about security.
- Abishek_Muthian 7y ago
  >Not to say Apple doesn't care about security. Not as much as it advertises itself as a torch bearer of Security & Privacy (or) Not as much its ardent proponents believe it to be.
bartread 7y ago
I may be misremembering but my understanding was that Apple disallowed other rendering engines not primarily for security reasons (although I'm sure they're a factor), but for performance and, by proxy, battery life. It's not dissimilar to the argument against Flash: yes it was insecure and unstable, but mostly it was a performance hog and a battery drain, which isn't great on mobile devices with limited battery life.
dwaite 7y ago
> if it decides to acknowledge and fix it The reference does not back up your claim - Apple never disputed that there was an issue, and they had already fixed it when Project Zero published their report.
scarface74 7y ago
What’s the practical difference between an OS update that can be one tiny patch and an app update? Not only does iOS 13 support all phones back to 2015. They released a patch for older devices going back to 2011 less than 6 months ago.
- ubercow13 7y ago
  One requires you to restart your phone and one doesn’t. One allows you to get the security patch without other unwanted changes to the OS.

hvmonk 7y ago

wdyt about the frequency of security patches vs you getting tracked on all sites you visit? Not to say Apple doesn't care about security.

Abishek_Muthian 7y ago
>Not to say Apple doesn't care about security. Not as much as it advertises itself as a torch bearer of Security & Privacy (or) Not as much its ardent proponents believe it to be.

bartread 7y ago

I may be misremembering but my understanding was that Apple disallowed other rendering engines not primarily for security reasons (although I'm sure they're a factor), but for performance and, by proxy, battery life. It's not dissimilar to the argument against Flash: yes it was insecure and unstable, but mostly it was a performance hog and a battery drain, which isn't great on mobile devices with limited battery life.

dwaite 7y ago

> if it decides to acknowledge and fix it The reference does not back up your claim - Apple never disputed that there was an issue, and they had already fixed it when Project Zero published their report.

scarface74 7y ago

What’s the practical difference between an OS update that can be one tiny patch and an app update? Not only does iOS 13 support all phones back to 2015. They released a patch for older devices going back to 2011 less than 6 months ago.

ubercow13 7y ago
One requires you to restart your phone and one doesn’t. One allows you to get the security patch without other unwanted changes to the OS.