7 ms·

Part of the point of security research is that practically 0% of consumers are capable of doing this research themselves and making informed purchasing decision

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.
        saagarjha 6y ago
        I was just responding to the part where you mentioned that good and bad actors had the same access before this program, which isn't true. (And it still probably isn't true, since I hear these devices are research fused and you can buy developer fused devices–or more recently, swap out your production-fused device's CPU–from the black market.) To individual researchers, yes, this gives them a new option–I guess that is good? What I am concerned about is that it is an attractive option for them and they get locked into whatever disclosure timeline/research focus Apple wants them to have. You could of course say that they could leave the program at any point and go back to how it was before, but I think people are generally reluctant to lose access to things.
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.

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.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        I was just responding to the part where you mentioned that good and bad actors had the same access before this program, which isn't true. (And it still probably isn't true, since I hear these devices are research fused and you can buy developer fused devices–or more recently, swap out your production-fused device's CPU–from the black market.) To individual researchers, yes, this gives them a new option–I guess that is good? What I am concerned about is that it is an attractive option for them and they get locked into whatever disclosure timeline/research focus Apple wants them to have. You could of course say that they could leave the program at any point and go back to how it was before, but I think people are generally reluctant to lose access to things.

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.