3 ms·

Are they sandboxed individually? If not it's insecure by default. I mostly don't mind auto-updates on iOS and maybe Android as they're at least supposed to be e

Are they sandboxed individually? If not it's insecure by default. I mostly don't mind auto-updates on iOS and maybe Android as they're at least supposed to be each app sandboxed by default. MacOS is getting better at this. Windows sucks at it. Where is snaps on that spectrum?

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Are you alluding to possibility of an update containing malicious code? Is that because the update's authenticiry is in question or is that because of original developer went rogue? Leaving the system unupdated is insecure. I do not see how auto-updates make it insecure, but themselves.
- gfxgirl 6y ago
  I depends on what we're updating. ATM I suppose I generally trust a core OS feature's devs to be trustworthy. On the other hand I don't trust random app that was trustworthy to stay trustworthy. Maybe they decided to add an analytics library or maybe it's a game and the decided to add an anti-cheat kit, both of which are essentially root kits spying on me. Maybe one of the libraries they use decided it would be good to do something similar so the app devs are trustworthy but the library devs are not. I find it strange that we trust as much as we do on our computers. Would you let 1000 people walk through your house unsupervised and unannounced? Would you expect everything to be ok after? Yet so many apps are created either directly or more likely indirectly via its dependencies by 1000s of people. Each one of those people has to be trusted. That's insane IMO. And as we get more and more connected the incentives to do evil rise. From say 1993 to 2010 I mostly didn't care that Windows wasn't sandboxed. Now every app I download is trying to spy on everything I do either for marketing directly or for analytics which is then shared with "business partners" who then share it with others. I wouldn't have to worry as much a random library is going to do something bad if it wasn't possible for it to do something bad https://www.google.com/search?q=malicious+libraries https://www.google.com/search?q=malicious+libraries
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    We are in complete agreement - the current station is untenable. However, what can you do about it as an end-user? By the time you are deciding whether to update candy crush or whatever application, you can't actually check all of it's dependencies. You can postpone updates, or only update manually, but what difference does it make?
michaelmrose 6y ago
Sandboxing outside of actually using a VM isn't very secure on Ubuntu. The parent poster also said "server" nobody runs IOS on their server.
cglong 6y ago
Actually Windows has been ahead of macOS for years in this area. The latest iteration of this technology on Windows is called MSIX: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/msix/overview#benefits-of-app-containers https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/msix/overview#benef...

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

Are you alluding to possibility of an update containing malicious code? Is that because the update's authenticiry is in question or is that because of original developer went rogue? Leaving the system unupdated is insecure. I do not see how auto-updates make it insecure, but themselves.

gfxgirl 6y ago
I depends on what we're updating. ATM I suppose I generally trust a core OS feature's devs to be trustworthy. On the other hand I don't trust random app that was trustworthy to stay trustworthy. Maybe they decided to add an analytics library or maybe it's a game and the decided to add an anti-cheat kit, both of which are essentially root kits spying on me. Maybe one of the libraries they use decided it would be good to do something similar so the app devs are trustworthy but the library devs are not. I find it strange that we trust as much as we do on our computers. Would you let 1000 people walk through your house unsupervised and unannounced? Would you expect everything to be ok after? Yet so many apps are created either directly or more likely indirectly via its dependencies by 1000s of people. Each one of those people has to be trusted. That's insane IMO. And as we get more and more connected the incentives to do evil rise. From say 1993 to 2010 I mostly didn't care that Windows wasn't sandboxed. Now every app I download is trying to spy on everything I do either for marketing directly or for analytics which is then shared with "business partners" who then share it with others. I wouldn't have to worry as much a random library is going to do something bad if it wasn't possible for it to do something bad https://www.google.com/search?q=malicious+libraries https://www.google.com/search?q=malicious+libraries
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  We are in complete agreement - the current station is untenable. However, what can you do about it as an end-user? By the time you are deciding whether to update candy crush or whatever application, you can't actually check all of it's dependencies. You can postpone updates, or only update manually, but what difference does it make?

michaelmrose 6y ago

Sandboxing outside of actually using a VM isn't very secure on Ubuntu. The parent poster also said "server" nobody runs IOS on their server.

cglong 6y ago

Actually Windows has been ahead of macOS for years in this area. The latest iteration of this technology on Windows is called MSIX: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/msix/overview#benefits-of-app-containers https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/msix/overview#benef...