6 ms·

That doesn't change the fact that you're able to do security research on Apple products without their permission.

saagarjha 6y ago
Apple gives me a locked box, I complain that I can't open it. You're saying that I shouldn't because some people have figured out how to pick the specific lock they're using, even though Apple doesn't want to people to do that and their next lock is not pickable using that technique anymore. Oh, and the pickable locks will be obsolete in a few years. Do you see the problem?
- xondono 6y ago
  > Apple gives me a locked box, I complain that I can't open it. Well, if you don’t like closed boxes, just don’t buy a closed box.
  - strbean 6y ago
    Part of the point of security research is that practically 0% of consumers are capable of doing this research themselves and making informed purchasing decisions. Security researchers hold businesses accountable when consumers can't. In light of that, your argument is "Just don't hold Apple accountable!", which Apple would love... but that would also be harmful to consumers.
    - xondono 6y ago
      > Part of the point of security research is that practically 0% of consumers are capable of doing this research Well, then by that statement alone security researchers aren’t just “anyone”. I don’t see a problem in a company imposing restrictions that make finding vulnerabilities harder for everyone in general provided they are willing to allow security researchers to jump those restrictions. In fact I actually see it as a big win, since now bad actors have significantly higher costs while good actors that are legally liable have lower barriers of entry.
      - saurik 6y ago
        ...but these hurdles (at least the ones I know of from the bug bounty program; and which I see elsewhere in this thread do seem to apply to these devices also) contain things like clauses most security researchers consider unethical (holding bugs indefinitely without public disclosure no matter how long it takes Apple to fix the issue) and seems to exclude people who don't generally show Apple in a favorable light. (And no: I entirely disagree that "bad actors" have significantly higher costs because of this, as bad actors can do illegal stuff like buy internal developer protocols off the black market from corrupt factory employees: there was a massive expose about this in Forbes last year. Hell: Apple bugs are actually less valuable on the black market now than Android bugs because there are so many of them! Apple's attempts to hide their devices from public scrutiny is about PR, not part of some coherent security strategy.)
        tptacek 6y ago
        If this doesn't impact costs for bad actors, it's hard to see how it impacts costs for good actors, since, in the status quo ante of this program, both good and bad actors shared the same vectors to get kernel access to devices. Apple is, on this page, explicit about the notion that this program doesn't impact vulnerability research done outside the program. In what way does this program do anything but add an option for good actors? I may just not be understanding you; maybe we just agree that this program doesn't change a whole lot.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        It gives researchers who don't want to do illegal things debugging access to the kernel, whereas previously this was not possible on newer devices because the only way to do that outside of Apple was to somehow (illegally) obtain access to a development-fused iPhone.
        tptacek 6y ago
        Yes; I'm asking, how does providing that new option harm software security researchers? I understand the subtext that Apple could more efficiently help software security researchers by freely unlocking phones, but I'm not here to litigate that.
    - briandear 6y ago
      How many consumers do in depth security analysis on devices before buying them? You are in a bubble of you think that’s normal behavior. And to do such research on a device, wouldn’t you need to buy a device? You’re going to buy a device to research if you should buy the device? And sales numbers would indicate that most people are confident enough in Apple’s security.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    There's a locked box, and there's the box that spies on you and also looks uglier to some people. Not much of a choice, is there?
    - bubblethink 6y ago
      Are you talking using or research ? For research, android is obviously much easier. As a user, sure, you may have your preference. Asking for Apple's cooperation in doing research on Apple devices seems quite antithetical to Apple's overall approach to business. I don't see why there should be any such expectation. I feel that once a company gets large enough (in stature, revenue, etc.), everyone bestows upon it certain qualities and expectations. It's not reasonable to do so. Large coal/oil company won't become environment friendly no matter how much money it makes.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        Using.
- Despegar 6y ago
  It's not illegal for you to do security research and Apple is not attempting to make it so. You'd like it to be more convenient to do security research and that is what this program is designed to do. I don't see why it's unreasonable for Apple to have terms you need to agree to to benefit from this program.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I think it is not unreasonable for Apple to make security research convenient without adding onerous restrictions on how it is done. Many other platforms do this already, too–actually it's the norm for most of them.

Apple gives me a locked box, I complain that I can't open it. You're saying that I shouldn't because some people have figured out how to pick the specific lock they're using, even though Apple doesn't want to people to do that and their next lock is not pickable using that technique anymore. Oh, and the pickable locks will be obsolete in a few years. Do you see the problem?

xondono 6y ago
> Apple gives me a locked box, I complain that I can't open it. Well, if you don’t like closed boxes, just don’t buy a closed box.
- strbean 6y ago
  Part of the point of security research is that practically 0% of consumers are capable of doing this research themselves and making informed purchasing decisions. Security researchers hold businesses accountable when consumers can't. In light of that, your argument is "Just don't hold Apple accountable!", which Apple would love... but that would also be harmful to consumers.
  - xondono 6y ago
    > Part of the point of security research is that practically 0% of consumers are capable of doing this research Well, then by that statement alone security researchers aren’t just “anyone”. I don’t see a problem in a company imposing restrictions that make finding vulnerabilities harder for everyone in general provided they are willing to allow security researchers to jump those restrictions. In fact I actually see it as a big win, since now bad actors have significantly higher costs while good actors that are legally liable have lower barriers of entry.
    - saurik 6y ago
      ...but these hurdles (at least the ones I know of from the bug bounty program; and which I see elsewhere in this thread do seem to apply to these devices also) contain things like clauses most security researchers consider unethical (holding bugs indefinitely without public disclosure no matter how long it takes Apple to fix the issue) and seems to exclude people who don't generally show Apple in a favorable light. (And no: I entirely disagree that "bad actors" have significantly higher costs because of this, as bad actors can do illegal stuff like buy internal developer protocols off the black market from corrupt factory employees: there was a massive expose about this in Forbes last year. Hell: Apple bugs are actually less valuable on the black market now than Android bugs because there are so many of them! Apple's attempts to hide their devices from public scrutiny is about PR, not part of some coherent security strategy.)
      - tptacek 6y ago
        If this doesn't impact costs for bad actors, it's hard to see how it impacts costs for good actors, since, in the status quo ante of this program, both good and bad actors shared the same vectors to get kernel access to devices. Apple is, on this page, explicit about the notion that this program doesn't impact vulnerability research done outside the program. In what way does this program do anything but add an option for good actors? I may just not be understanding you; maybe we just agree that this program doesn't change a whole lot.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        It gives researchers who don't want to do illegal things debugging access to the kernel, whereas previously this was not possible on newer devices because the only way to do that outside of Apple was to somehow (illegally) obtain access to a development-fused iPhone.
        tptacek 6y ago
        Yes; I'm asking, how does providing that new option harm software security researchers? I understand the subtext that Apple could more efficiently help software security researchers by freely unlocking phones, but I'm not here to litigate that.
  - briandear 6y ago
    How many consumers do in depth security analysis on devices before buying them? You are in a bubble of you think that’s normal behavior. And to do such research on a device, wouldn’t you need to buy a device? You’re going to buy a device to research if you should buy the device? And sales numbers would indicate that most people are confident enough in Apple’s security.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  There's a locked box, and there's the box that spies on you and also looks uglier to some people. Not much of a choice, is there?
  - bubblethink 6y ago
    Are you talking using or research ? For research, android is obviously much easier. As a user, sure, you may have your preference. Asking for Apple's cooperation in doing research on Apple devices seems quite antithetical to Apple's overall approach to business. I don't see why there should be any such expectation. I feel that once a company gets large enough (in stature, revenue, etc.), everyone bestows upon it certain qualities and expectations. It's not reasonable to do so. Large coal/oil company won't become environment friendly no matter how much money it makes.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Using.
Despegar 6y ago
It's not illegal for you to do security research and Apple is not attempting to make it so. You'd like it to be more convenient to do security research and that is what this program is designed to do. I don't see why it's unreasonable for Apple to have terms you need to agree to to benefit from this program.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I think it is not unreasonable for Apple to make security research convenient without adding onerous restrictions on how it is done. Many other platforms do this already, too–actually it's the norm for most of them.