3 ms·

> I'm curious what the author things a good resolution for this would be. Files created by an app (app1) that is being controlled by another app (app2) should

> I'm curious what the author things a good resolution for this would be. Files created by an app (app1) that is being controlled by another app (app2) should inherit the security context of app2, not app1 (or better yet, where privileges differ, apply the lesser of the the two). The fix should be applied where the security characteristics of a file are written. Perhaps that would mean introducing a new primitive that tracks when an app is being controlled by another app -- not sure. Also, perhaps have special exceptions for files written to places like /Library/Application Support/app1/ -- an app's own working files are unlikely to present privilege escalation opportunities unless app2 is able to exploit a vulnerability in app1. > Also, who would think controlling a text editor is innocuous? I can think of several family members who might think "um why?" but not have any idea of the security implications.

bredren 7y ago
> I can think of several family members who might think "um why?" but not have any idea of the security implications. This is definitely the case. When presented with a dialog that prevents progression, many, many users will click whatever makes it "go away." However, when I see something like this, I get the heebie-jeebies. Apple's done a great job at locking down stuff, and when I have to provide accessibility or some other weirdness I know what I'm doing. I think if a successful exploit of this started spreading, Apple might add some exception for TextEdit. But in lieu of that, I can only imagine the amount of substantial, unprompted security problems are quite extensive.