5 ms·

> Without review, publishing an app with a sandbox bypass, or simply abusing entitlements, becomes trivial. I don't think this would be trivial either. Given t

> Without review, publishing an app with a sandbox bypass, or simply abusing entitlements, becomes trivial. I don't think this would be trivial either. Given that iOS security has historically been rather good, I guess an attacker would need a reasonably new exploit or even zero day. Assuming an attacker has access to something like that, I'm 99.8% certain he'd be able to sneak past the review process as well. As Fortnite has demonstrated, it is perfectly possible to sneak past the review process with something as obvious as a third party payment checkout. If something like that is possible, it'd be definitely possible for something like an exploit. The review process isn't magic

scarface74 6y ago
Fortnite has also demonstrated how sloppy third party developers are with respect to security. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vulnerability-leads-to-googleepic-games-spat/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu... And at least Epic wasn’t purposefully installing back doors. Unlike Zoom. https://www.zdnet.com/article/zoom-defends-use-of-local-web-server-on-macs-after-security-report/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/zoom-defends-use-of-local-web-...
- saagarjha 6y ago
  That argument doesn't make sense, because Apple isn't going to lower the sandboxing requirement for anyone, it's just going to provide an API to install an IPA. (Actually, that API already exists of course, they'll just remove the check that makes sure you're Apple when you call it.) Third parties' security practices have no bearing on how secure Apple makes their own platform–the parent comment is literally saying "Without review, publishing an app [that ships with a zero-day exploit for iOS] becomes trivial"
  - scarface74 6y ago
    A third party App Store by definition has permission to download other code. Android also has a sandbox. That didn’t prevent the security vulnerability from Fortnite.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I hate to say it, but did you read the article? Saying "Android has a sandbox" to my comment makes no sense in the context of the issue with Fornite's installer. The vulnerability there was specifically that the third-party app store did not run in a sufficiently sandboxed environment, allowing another application to swap out the app after it was downloaded but before it was installed.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        So won’t the same people be screaming if Apple puts too tight of restrictions on a third party App Store? If Apple has to approve third party app stores, would people be happy?
        saagarjha 6y ago
        I am very confused as to how approval of third party app stores comes into this? The flow I'm thinking of is going to be "you install a third-party app store, which is identical to any other app except it has one additional capability that it takes an IPA and can request that the system install it". Keeping that in mind, is your comment still pertinent? If so, how?
3pt14159 6y ago
Sometimes Apple is aware of vulnerabilities before they are patched, and it only takes getting caught once for the app, company, and individual developer to be banned from the App Store. Also, I think you may overestimate most attackers. Most of them are so lazy.

scarface74 6y ago

Fortnite has also demonstrated how sloppy third party developers are with respect to security. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vulnerability-leads-to-googleepic-games-spat/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu... And at least Epic wasn’t purposefully installing back doors. Unlike Zoom. https://www.zdnet.com/article/zoom-defends-use-of-local-web-server-on-macs-after-security-report/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/zoom-defends-use-of-local-web-...

saagarjha 6y ago
That argument doesn't make sense, because Apple isn't going to lower the sandboxing requirement for anyone, it's just going to provide an API to install an IPA. (Actually, that API already exists of course, they'll just remove the check that makes sure you're Apple when you call it.) Third parties' security practices have no bearing on how secure Apple makes their own platform–the parent comment is literally saying "Without review, publishing an app [that ships with a zero-day exploit for iOS] becomes trivial"
- scarface74 6y ago
  A third party App Store by definition has permission to download other code. Android also has a sandbox. That didn’t prevent the security vulnerability from Fortnite.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I hate to say it, but did you read the article? Saying "Android has a sandbox" to my comment makes no sense in the context of the issue with Fornite's installer. The vulnerability there was specifically that the third-party app store did not run in a sufficiently sandboxed environment, allowing another application to swap out the app after it was downloaded but before it was installed.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      So won’t the same people be screaming if Apple puts too tight of restrictions on a third party App Store? If Apple has to approve third party app stores, would people be happy?
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        I am very confused as to how approval of third party app stores comes into this? The flow I'm thinking of is going to be "you install a third-party app store, which is identical to any other app except it has one additional capability that it takes an IPA and can request that the system install it". Keeping that in mind, is your comment still pertinent? If so, how?

3pt14159 6y ago

Sometimes Apple is aware of vulnerabilities before they are patched, and it only takes getting caught once for the app, company, and individual developer to be banned from the App Store. Also, I think you may overestimate most attackers. Most of them are so lazy.