8 ms·

:O This is huge. Not as a security device, but if this were the normal permission model on all iPhones (e.g. owners of devices get root on the devices they own

:O This is huge. Not as a security device, but if this were the normal permission model on all iPhones (e.g. owners of devices get root on the devices they own... like a normal general purpose computing device) I could ditch my android and my mac and use an iPhone for everything. I'm not saying this will ever happen, but in my mind this paints a bright picture of what the iPhone could be. It's also a bit sobering as I'm quite concerned Apple is actually pushing the other direction in their shift from Intel to ARM.

yalogin 6y ago
I dont get the allure of this. As someone working in security, the phone is an extremely leaky thing and very bad for privacy to begin with. On top of that you want to remove all restrictions and make it a security nightmare too? I get that you want to install what you like. Sure, but I don't think the convenience is worth the security trade off. Honestly the mac or desktop is where I enjoy the openness and do stuff I want to do. I would want to leave the phone untouched and as secure as possible. I would like to hear your and others' take on it though.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  > As someone working in security, the phone is an extremely leaky thing and very bad for privacy to begin with. On top of that you want to remove all restrictions and make it a security nightmare too? One major issue is that Apple's security model is "we don't trust you". And by that I mean everything works from their root of trust; not yours. This isn't the usual "I think Apple is backdooring my iPhone, FWIW", what I'm really saying is that I want the ability to elevate some of my software to the same permissions that Apple gives theirs. There is no reason that I should not be able to vet my own code and add it to the "trust cache". So this isn't just "every app should run without a sandbox", but it should be "I think GDB that I personally should be able to attach to other apps, but nothing else".
  - donor20 6y ago
    This is because apple feels its too easy to trick users into elevating software permissions - which in turn may cause risks and harms to their user base. Let me ask you - do you have your elderly parents on an android? Then you will know already how totally owned those phones can become.
    - jedieaston 6y ago
      If you require the user to hook into iTunes/Xcode, flip the device into recovery mode, click a few buttons, and agree to a "You're hecked if you break it now" policy, it'll be enough to scare off 99.9% of people from getting owned. After that, just have it work like the current profiles/supervision system where Settings makes it clear that non-verified code is running and has a big "make it go away!" button (sideloaded IPAs show up in profiles with a delete app button, and that works well enough except for the time limit).
      - stqism 6y ago
        I don’t really agree to this, the end result is going to be a large number of YouTube tutorials instructing people on how to do this with captions like: watch free movies on iPhone, “popular mobile game” money hack, and Snapchat take screenshots without notifying hack. Half of these developer / root mode required secrets are going to be occasionally working mods and tweaks except with tons of baked in spyware and ads that can no longer easily be removed. Perhaps some sort of per device profile which requires a paid developer account could work, but I’ve gotten a number of odd calls about YouTube videos involving Kodi from family before, so I’m not sure trusting in the give users freedom front.
        GekkePrutser 6y ago
        This proves exactly the point made above of Apple not trusting the user. However if someone wants to be an idiot, how far do you go to stop them? Apple's approach stops too many great possibilities for knowledgeable users. It should be in the same category as those "will it blend" types. Screw it up? No warranty. For me there's several things I need it that are impossible because Apple won't allow them, so I have to use Android. But that's comes infected with Google spyware out of the box :(
- legulere 6y ago
  > As someone working in security, the phone is an extremely leaky thing and very bad for privacy to begin with. Compared with a computer where every program can steal all your data?
  - gruez 6y ago
    A computer doesn't follow you around. It also doesn't have a ton of built in sensors (accelerometer, dual cameras, microphones, gps).
    - judge2020 6y ago
      Yet the biggest trade secrets will only accessible via a computer when they have certain DLP policies in place which lock down the machine to the same effect that iPhones are locked down, only with the company’s own trust store. The iPhone is Apple bringing this level of lock down to consumers, but with safeguards that prevent the user from adding completely untrusted code (only when you use Apple Business Manager+MDM can you deploy in-house apps without review).
      - jsjohnst 6y ago
        > only when you use Apple Business Manager+MDM can you deploy in-house apps without review Incorrect and never was true that that was the only way or even the common way.
- dfischer 6y ago
  How is android any better? Anecdotally I’ve seen more compromised android devices than iPhones. It appears to me Apple has defaults, at least now, that protect the privacy of the user. Additionally the ecosystem is less littered with apps that can take over the whole OS. My mother’s phone is always getting compromised by malware or apps that inject ads.
- userbinator 6y ago
  I'd rather live with the risk and enjoy the freedom than give in to the authoritarian corporations whose main goal is to achieve complete control over their users, and advertise it under the guise of security. Personally, I find it a bit sad and disturbing that people will so willingly and eagerly help --- even for free --- these companies put tighter nooses around themselves and others' necks. (I'm not "Stallmanist", in that I'm not necessarily advocating open-source; but I am a strong proponent of being able to control what one's computing devices runs, regardless of source availability or even legality. In that sense, what Apple does with its walled gardens is really a strong DRM.)
  - monkin 6y ago
    It’s not Stallmanism, it’s ignorance and thinking that you’re the only person on planet. It’s pretty much common thing here. Apple doesn’t secure and close down by default their devices to please/upset bunch of nerds on HN, they do it, because normal people don’t know a damn thing about technology. People who “willingly and eagerly help” to find bugs and patch them are heroes. Just like that.
    - realusername 6y ago
      > Apple doesn’t secure and close down by default their devices to please/upset bunch of nerds on HN, they do it, because normal people don’t know a damn thing about technology. People who “willingly and eagerly help” to find bugs and patch them are heroes. Just like that. Of course not, they lock these devices only because it makes them more money. They really want you to pay that 30% cut, "security" is just an excuse. There's plenty of more open and more secure platforms than the iPhone, just have a look at the web.
      - monkin 6y ago
        It’s business, but you still didn’t get what I wrote. :)
saagarjha 6y ago
I see it as the opposite: these iPhones are rented to you, and are clearly not what they want to "sell" to people. It's certainly a huge surprise that this exists at all, and I would certainly like more moves in the direction that you mentioned, but I am not sure that this is it.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Nitpick—I wouldn't say it's a huge surprise, since they said last year they planned to do this. I was actually wondering what was taking so long.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Huge surprise for me, because I personally expected them to pull an AirPower with this and just forget about it (especially since the demand was gone with checkm8).
jacobkania 6y ago
Curious what you mean by “pushing the other direction.” I would say the opposite — it seems like everything running on ARM is exactly what it would take for your phone to run desktop programs. I think there are other downsides to switching off of x86, but I think it strengthens the case for having one small portable computer to do everything. The question is if that device will allow real work like macOS, or if it’ll be stuck as a fancy consumer-only device..
cookiengineer 6y ago
> like a normal general purpose computing device Maybe just go for a PinePhone instead? [1] I mean, Linux GUIs aren't fully mobile and touchscreen friendly yet, but it's getting there real quick. I mean, they started in November 2019. In my opinion the PinePhone is the most promising device, as all upstream projects use it as an official developer device and upstream linux has integrated support. [1] https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone_Software_Releases https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone_Software_Release...
dcow 6y ago
Don't get your hopes up. This is not what you think it is, sadly.

yalogin 6y ago

I dont get the allure of this. As someone working in security, the phone is an extremely leaky thing and very bad for privacy to begin with. On top of that you want to remove all restrictions and make it a security nightmare too? I get that you want to install what you like. Sure, but I don't think the convenience is worth the security trade off. Honestly the mac or desktop is where I enjoy the openness and do stuff I want to do. I would want to leave the phone untouched and as secure as possible. I would like to hear your and others' take on it though.

saagarjha 6y ago
> As someone working in security, the phone is an extremely leaky thing and very bad for privacy to begin with. On top of that you want to remove all restrictions and make it a security nightmare too? One major issue is that Apple's security model is "we don't trust you". And by that I mean everything works from their root of trust; not yours. This isn't the usual "I think Apple is backdooring my iPhone, FWIW", what I'm really saying is that I want the ability to elevate some of my software to the same permissions that Apple gives theirs. There is no reason that I should not be able to vet my own code and add it to the "trust cache". So this isn't just "every app should run without a sandbox", but it should be "I think GDB that I personally should be able to attach to other apps, but nothing else".
- donor20 6y ago
  This is because apple feels its too easy to trick users into elevating software permissions - which in turn may cause risks and harms to their user base. Let me ask you - do you have your elderly parents on an android? Then you will know already how totally owned those phones can become.
  - jedieaston 6y ago
    If you require the user to hook into iTunes/Xcode, flip the device into recovery mode, click a few buttons, and agree to a "You're hecked if you break it now" policy, it'll be enough to scare off 99.9% of people from getting owned. After that, just have it work like the current profiles/supervision system where Settings makes it clear that non-verified code is running and has a big "make it go away!" button (sideloaded IPAs show up in profiles with a delete app button, and that works well enough except for the time limit).
    - stqism 6y ago
      I don’t really agree to this, the end result is going to be a large number of YouTube tutorials instructing people on how to do this with captions like: watch free movies on iPhone, “popular mobile game” money hack, and Snapchat take screenshots without notifying hack. Half of these developer / root mode required secrets are going to be occasionally working mods and tweaks except with tons of baked in spyware and ads that can no longer easily be removed. Perhaps some sort of per device profile which requires a paid developer account could work, but I’ve gotten a number of odd calls about YouTube videos involving Kodi from family before, so I’m not sure trusting in the give users freedom front.
      - GekkePrutser 6y ago
        This proves exactly the point made above of Apple not trusting the user. However if someone wants to be an idiot, how far do you go to stop them? Apple's approach stops too many great possibilities for knowledgeable users. It should be in the same category as those "will it blend" types. Screw it up? No warranty. For me there's several things I need it that are impossible because Apple won't allow them, so I have to use Android. But that's comes infected with Google spyware out of the box :(
legulere 6y ago
> As someone working in security, the phone is an extremely leaky thing and very bad for privacy to begin with. Compared with a computer where every program can steal all your data?
- gruez 6y ago
  A computer doesn't follow you around. It also doesn't have a ton of built in sensors (accelerometer, dual cameras, microphones, gps).
  - judge2020 6y ago
    Yet the biggest trade secrets will only accessible via a computer when they have certain DLP policies in place which lock down the machine to the same effect that iPhones are locked down, only with the company’s own trust store. The iPhone is Apple bringing this level of lock down to consumers, but with safeguards that prevent the user from adding completely untrusted code (only when you use Apple Business Manager+MDM can you deploy in-house apps without review).
    - jsjohnst 6y ago
      > only when you use Apple Business Manager+MDM can you deploy in-house apps without review Incorrect and never was true that that was the only way or even the common way.
dfischer 6y ago
How is android any better? Anecdotally I’ve seen more compromised android devices than iPhones. It appears to me Apple has defaults, at least now, that protect the privacy of the user. Additionally the ecosystem is less littered with apps that can take over the whole OS. My mother’s phone is always getting compromised by malware or apps that inject ads.
userbinator 6y ago
I'd rather live with the risk and enjoy the freedom than give in to the authoritarian corporations whose main goal is to achieve complete control over their users, and advertise it under the guise of security. Personally, I find it a bit sad and disturbing that people will so willingly and eagerly help --- even for free --- these companies put tighter nooses around themselves and others' necks. (I'm not "Stallmanist", in that I'm not necessarily advocating open-source; but I am a strong proponent of being able to control what one's computing devices runs, regardless of source availability or even legality. In that sense, what Apple does with its walled gardens is really a strong DRM.)
- monkin 6y ago
  It’s not Stallmanism, it’s ignorance and thinking that you’re the only person on planet. It’s pretty much common thing here. Apple doesn’t secure and close down by default their devices to please/upset bunch of nerds on HN, they do it, because normal people don’t know a damn thing about technology. People who “willingly and eagerly help” to find bugs and patch them are heroes. Just like that.
  - realusername 6y ago
    > Apple doesn’t secure and close down by default their devices to please/upset bunch of nerds on HN, they do it, because normal people don’t know a damn thing about technology. People who “willingly and eagerly help” to find bugs and patch them are heroes. Just like that. Of course not, they lock these devices only because it makes them more money. They really want you to pay that 30% cut, "security" is just an excuse. There's plenty of more open and more secure platforms than the iPhone, just have a look at the web.
    - monkin 6y ago
      It’s business, but you still didn’t get what I wrote. :)

saagarjha 6y ago

I see it as the opposite: these iPhones are rented to you, and are clearly not what they want to "sell" to people. It's certainly a huge surprise that this exists at all, and I would certainly like more moves in the direction that you mentioned, but I am not sure that this is it.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
Nitpick—I wouldn't say it's a huge surprise, since they said last year they planned to do this. I was actually wondering what was taking so long.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Huge surprise for me, because I personally expected them to pull an AirPower with this and just forget about it (especially since the demand was gone with checkm8).

jacobkania 6y ago

Curious what you mean by “pushing the other direction.” I would say the opposite — it seems like everything running on ARM is exactly what it would take for your phone to run desktop programs. I think there are other downsides to switching off of x86, but I think it strengthens the case for having one small portable computer to do everything. The question is if that device will allow real work like macOS, or if it’ll be stuck as a fancy consumer-only device..

cookiengineer 6y ago

> like a normal general purpose computing device Maybe just go for a PinePhone instead? [1] I mean, Linux GUIs aren't fully mobile and touchscreen friendly yet, but it's getting there real quick. I mean, they started in November 2019. In my opinion the PinePhone is the most promising device, as all upstream projects use it as an official developer device and upstream linux has integrated support. [1] https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone_Software_Releases https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PinePhone_Software_Release...

dcow 6y ago

Don't get your hopes up. This is not what you think it is, sadly.