7 ms·

If this unacceptable mess is "doing it well", perhaps the whole idea is doomed and should not be attempting to do it at all. > It comes down to an argument of

If this unacceptable mess is "doing it well", perhaps the whole idea is doomed and should not be attempting to do it at all. > It comes down to an argument of trust - do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests No. I mean really very obviously no. Neither Microsoft. Nor Google. Why would I assume any company would act in my interests when they have clear incentives to increase their profits and control by acting counter to them? It's great that the author loves to exist within the limits and restrictions imposed by Apple, but don't expect me to go along with your Stockholm Syndrome and belittle me for differing.

macintux 6y ago
Where does the author belittle those who prefer a different answer?
- craigsmansion 6y ago
  By posing false dichotomies: "do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests, or do you believe they're a malevolent entity?" It's perfectly reasonable to believe that Apple is acting in Apple's best interest without attributing malevolence. By downplaying rational arguments: "I think the privacy arguments are far-fetched (because others are worse)" By using loaded terms: "Dogwhistles The privacy squad mobilised" Presenting strawmen: "if I have the code, build the code, nothing can hide in the code. This is a fallacy that people buy in to thanks to effective marketing " Lying by omission: "It's not feasible for an individual to maintain the list of trustworthy or untrustworthy parties that Apple does." It's perfectly feasible for a group of individuals. I'll take any group distro maintainers over Apple's word. He really doesn't just sound like an Apple apologist; he is one.
  - macintux 6y ago
    Fair points, I should have re-read it after seeing the GP’s comment.
  - zepto 6y ago
    You’re exaggerating, and then falling into the same traps you are accusing him of. A lot to people are claiming Apple is a malevolent entity. In context, it is reasonable for him to rebut that. I agree with you about his use of loaded terms, and the dismissiveness. The straw man you cite isn’t a straw man. It is a solid argument. https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=5706 https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=5706 The lie of omission you assert isn’t a lie. No group of distro maintainers has solved the problem Apple is solving. The author used the word ‘feasible’. This is currently true, but doesn’t need to remain so. The fact that you are technically literate enough to know about distro maintainers, and trust them does not mean it is feasible for everyone to do so. “He really doesn’t just sound like an Apple apologist; he is one.” If that isn’t a loaded term, I don’t know what is.
    - craigsmansion 6y ago
      > A lot to people are claiming Apple is a malevolent entity. In context, it is reasonable for him to rebut that. The exclusive "or" in "do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests, or do you believe they're a malevolent entity?" still makes it a false dichotomy. > The straw man you cite isn’t a straw man. It is a solid argument. "if I have the code, build the code, nothing can hide in the code.": is not something someone knowledgeable would ever claim, only that having the code and building the code will be at least as safe or safer than not having the code at all. Presenting it as "nothing can hide in the code" and then attacking that is, in my opinion, a strawman argument. > The author used the word ‘feasible’. And he is correct in that. No single individual can maintain the software integrity of an entire operating system, but a group of people can do so. The omission here is that that group of people need not be Apple. The argument here is that without Apple taking control of the user's software the user would fall prey to the privacy violating practices of the likes of Google and Microsoft, which is not true. Hence the "lie by omission". > If that isn’t a loaded term, I don’t know what is. The term is from the article: "While I'm going to sound like an Apple apologist," He claims he is not X, but has given no argument why he shouldn't be considered X and has presented a lot of arguments on why he should be considered X. He has presented no reason to assume he is not a devoted Apple user, or in his words, an "Apple apologist". In short, I'm not sure I'm exaggerating, but that I'm willing to disagree on.
- stouset 6y ago
  Further, GP is outright belittling those that disagree with them with the Stockholm syndrome comment.
orf 6y ago
The internet is a malicious place, filled with the non-technical and uninformed. I guess we’ll wait for you to design a better trust-based system that allows you to stop malicious software from executing on N different machines without needing N users to do anything.
- brainzap 6y ago
  Norton Antivirus will protect me
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    Nortan Antivirus. Download now, free 6 month trial.
  - iso1210 6y ago
    I trust in McAfee, the software is as stable as the founder
- zepto 6y ago
  It’s unfortunate that this is a response to a bulveristic comment. This really is a very important problem, indeed perhaps the most important problem in computer science today.
  - api 6y ago
    The real solution is a least privilege hardened operating system that limits the damage both in terms of malicious effects and data exfiltration/ surveillance. Exposing permissions to users is also a hard UI/UX problem. Code signing and OCSP and such are band aids to cover the fact that our OSes have deeply inadequate security models. They all date back to the days when the net was far less hostile or in some cases before WANs were a common thing. Web browsers run code from everywhere and do a decent but not perfect job of this. It’s possible.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I’d say this is only one half. Many malicious effects involve social engineering, fraud, etc, and are not about exfiltration of files.
jb1991 6y ago
Your tone here does not seem proportionally appropriate to the level of discourse this article is attempting. The fact of the matter is that computers offer myriad ways to compromise your life and behave maliciously, and avoiding that is a tall challenge for any company. Apple is trying it their way, and you can try it yours. But to call it Stockholm Syndrome is an unfortunate take on these efforts.
- jhardy54 6y ago
  Can you explain why? You've offered assertions but haven't explained why you feel that way.
  - jb1991 6y ago
    I don't follow... what did you want me to explain and what assertions are you referring to. If you mean, the assertion that Apple users are suffering Stockholm Syndrome is an inappropriate discourse, I'm not sure how to better explain that.
    - jhardy54 6y ago
      Maybe you could start by why you think it's inappropriate?
      - coldtea 6y ago
        Because it's a "mass psychology" BS explanation based on the premise of "others are misguided/idiots/sheep/Stockholmed and I know the truth/true freedom" - as opposed to a good faith argument, understaning that it's an ideological preference and that others (including people with 10 times the degrees, career experience, computer science knowledge of the author, can think otherwise). If that very basic thing needs to be spelt out, I'm not sure how any discussion is possible...
  - zepto 6y ago
    It’s a form of bulverism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
JKCalhoun 6y ago
> Why would I assume any company would act in my interests when they have clear incentives to increase their profits and control by acting counter to them? I get what you're saying, but (as an Apple fanboy) I have to point out that Apple's incentives are to act in your, the customer's, interests since that is what they are selling now. They are differentiating themselves from the Googles by taking user privacy seriously. If they act against that they lose their key advantage. Trust but verify perhaps?
- staticman2 6y ago
  It's not in my interest to have Apple censors control what web browser I run on my phone or what games I can play on my phone.
  - revscat 6y ago
    This is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - zepto 6y ago
    You aren’t their customer.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I’m an Apple customer and their interests don’t always line up with mine.
      - zepto 6y ago
        By ‘customer’ I mean target customer in a marketing sense. In this sense, you are not their customer. I am not either.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
ajharrison 6y ago
I’m so fucking bored of this Stallman-esque stance on technology. Don’t like, use something else.
crazygringo 6y ago
I conclude the opposite: Yes. I mean really very obviously yes. And Microsoft. And Google. I assume they're acting in my interests because they have clear incentives to increase their profits by giving me useful helpful products that I'll buy. That's the entire premise of competition and the free market. The invisible hand gives consumers what they want. If, as a company, you don't, then you go out of business. If this were a communist country where the Party performed validation checks? With no choice between products? Then no. But in a competitive free market? Absolutely. In fact I'm relying on their motive to increase profits in order to trust that they'll act responsibly. What can you trust more than someone else's self-interest, at the end of the day?
- bitmunk 6y ago
  Tobacco.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Comcast.
bigbubba 6y ago
People really want to believe these corporations are charitable organizations, not inhuman slow AIs optimizing for profit. The propaganda departments of these corporations really do a number on people.
- sonotathrowaway 6y ago
  I read the article and you seem to sidestep all the arguments and facts they present, instead just saying their a brainwashed by propaganda. Not as convincing an argument, sadly.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Veen 6y ago
Perhaps we should think about this from a utilitarian perspective. There are obvious security advantages to app signing. But there are also negative implications for privacy and availability. Given tens of millions of non-technical users, is app signing likely to result in more good than bad, taking into account the fact that it can be turned off? I don’t know the answer, but I’m pretty sure those who relentlessly focus on the possible downsides don’t know either. (Pretending to be able to see into the minds and motivations of people you don’t know is rarely helpful. You have no grounds to attribute users’ behavior and opinions to Stockholm Syndrome, and it doesn’t apply anyway: no one is held hostage or abused in this scenario)
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The key is in understanding that the trade off is an illusion. App signing is de facto blacklisting. Anyone can get an app signed but Apple maintains a naughty list. It's just anti-virus by another name. But you don't need signed apps for that, only hashes. And you don't have to phone home for that, only download the latest naughty list whenever it changes so you can check against it locally.
- zeusflight 6y ago
  > There are obvious security advantages to app signing. But there are also negative implications for privacy and availability. App signing exists elsewhere without sacrificing privacy. Most Linux packages, for example, are signed with GPG keys. The difference is that Linux only cares about installing trusted packages. It doesn't care about applications that are already installed after verification. Apple insists on having the ability to revoke something that's already installed. There are two issues here: 1. Is it reasonable to revoke permissions for an installed package? It could be argued that it will help stop malicious apps that were discovered after they were distributed. However, it could equally as well be that Apple wants more control over devices and hold developers to ransom. Their recent treatment of developers indicate that this concern is not at all misplaced. The least Apple could do is warn the user about a revoked certificate and ask if they still want to proceed (like how browsers do in the same scenario). However, it just refuses outright. 2. Apple chose a very bad method to implement online certificate revocation. OCSP is meant for server certificate validation. OCSP stapling is preferred over plain OCSP due to privacy concerns. Stapling cannot be used in this context. This method unfortunately ruins privacy and spill user information everywhere. They could have chosen some other more private method, like an updatable CRL. > I’m pretty sure those who relentlessly focus on the possible downsides don’t know either. As I said, there are more private ways to push revocation status. Apple always claimed that the device lockdown was to ensure privacy. This oversight shows how hollow that claim is. Important part to notice is the false dichotomy of freedom vs security. The argument that negligent users will screw up if given freedom. This is wrong for two reasons: 1. Defaults vs restrictions: Keep the defaults secure and slightly hard to modify for normal users. But don't restrict those who need alternatives. 2. Security can be achieved without locking everything down and remote controlling it. See web browsers for example. We run JS from all insecure sources, but cannot access sensitive resources (like camera, file access etc) without users' permission. The same can be achieved on OS with sandboxing, microkernels etc. > no one is held hostage or abused in this scenario Abuse is not always apparent to the abused. User rights are gradually eroded away in the name of security, giving users enough time to get accustomed to it. There may be escape hatches now, but they are slowly getting closed. For example, we considered PCs that don't allow us to install another OS as abusive. However, we don't hold mobile devices to the same standard. Unfortunately, this normalization of abuse doesn't just affect those who accept it. The rest of us are left without a choice. That criticism is definitely valid.
coldtea 6y ago
>If this unacceptable mess is "doing it well", perhaps the whole idea is doomed and should not be attempting to do it at all. Well, "unacceptable mess" are your words. It's totally acceptable to me that there could be issues on a feature / launch that need to be ironed out, unless we're talking about aviation software or pacemakers. If we deemed "unacceptable" any misstep or early issue, we wouldn't even have fire, a relatively tried and tested technology, that still has its issues... >No. I mean really very obviously no. The question is not an absolut one. You should read it "do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests OVER any random app you might install or website you visit?". Not to mention they don't even do the kind of tracking the original "sky is falling" post assumed they do: https://blog.jacopo.io/en/post/apple-ocsp/ https://blog.jacopo.io/en/post/apple-ocsp/ As this post says, "Now that you know the actual facts, if you think your privacy is put at risk by this feature more than having potential undetected malware running on your system, go ahead [and disable the checking via /etc/hosts]". >It's great that the author loves to exist within the limits and restrictions imposed by Apple, but don't expect me to go along with your Stockholm Syndrome and belittle me for differing. The author is a security specialist, not some random dude. And he made his point with technical arguments, not hand waving.
- alfonsodev 6y ago
  But this thing frezzes your whole computer, it happen to me while switching internet providers, I could have worked perfectly fine offline, but I've lost hours, which I'm not getting back. I don't know if there has been an apology but I would like to see one. Edit: By saying this I'm not endorsing OP exact words, but the failure is not a minor, besides hours of work lost, it was a major stress, as I though I would have to take the computer to repair, or replace it, and I can still manage, but many people can't afford it right now.
- 8bitsrule 6y ago
  Spin, spin, spin. I learned to distrust Apple's hardware after I bought my last (i)Mac. I've see no reason to think it or its software's gotten more trustworthy. (The company that released the Apple II manual was trustworthy. That company was buried out behind the shed long ago.)
lmilcin 6y ago
Whether something is or isn't acceptable is completely separate from whether it is done well. Guns can be well engineered, but that does in no way answer whether it is or isn't acceptable to own one.
quelsolaar 6y ago
I'm entirely fine with people running "Trust" systems. But not when the platforms do it by force. If you want to pay McAfee, or some other service to force your computer to only run trusted code, then that's your choice. I might even be fine if Apple or Microsoft offered it as a service you have to pay extra for. The problem is when one entity can lock down a platform entirely. Its a problem when its not a choice the user have. Its also a problem that even when the user wants all code to be verified, they cant choose who it gets verified by. If yesterdays disaster had happen to a third party trust company, and not Apple, a lot of people would be looking for a new trust vendor today. Thats what should happen in a non-monopolistic market.
- johncolanduoni 6y ago
  Mac market share is less than 10% in the US, even lower in other countries. I personally know at least one person who is considering not buying one next time around just because of this incident. Some people use tools that lock them onto a Mac, but most of that is just people that have to develop for Macs (and they’re stuck no matter what Apple does, because they need to test on Macs). The iOS/App Store monopoly arguments are one thing, but 10% is a monopoly now? Just because a company sells a product that has some things one might want that no other market players bother combined with some things that they don’t like, doesn’t mean they’re “exploiting a monopoly”.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > The iOS/App Store monopoly arguments are one thing, but 10% is a monopoly now? It goes the other direction. If you want to develop for iOS you have to get a Mac even if you don't want one. Moreover, this behavior is objectionable regardless of market share, because a platform excluding alternative stores segregates that platform into a different market. If you're a developer whose customers use a Mac, and Apple starts operating the Mac App Store the same as the iOS one, it doesn't matter that they have 10% market share because that 10% of the PC market is 100% of your app customers and the relevant market isn't PCs, it's app distribution to a given customer base.
    - 6y ago
foobiekr 6y ago
I do trust apple over a hundred different developers with random practices. I found out not long ago that a tool I was using had no hygiene practices at all - they grabbed random versions of things they packaged up, had no meaningful audit trail at all, no means to notify (or even awareness that this might be a consideration) essentially no meaningful code review and so on. I noted this because I was investigating a bug for the project and gradually the reality became clear. At the very least, Apple is one step above mayhem and negligence.
- amelius 6y ago
  McDonald's food never makes me sick. One time I went to a different restaurant, and I found out that they had no hygiene practices at all. At least McDonald's is one step above mayhem, and it therefore is where I eat all my dinners.
  - foobiekr 6y ago
    That's the wrong analogy. The right analogy is Apple is acting as a restaurant inspector. They may miss a lot, but they accomplish _something_.
summitsummit 6y ago
> Why would I assume any company would act in my interests when they have clear incentives to increase their profits and control by acting counter to them? Even without perverse incentives, why would another agent in your environment have any reason to go out of their way to have your best interest at heart?
viraptor 6y ago
> Neither Microsoft I see more nuance here. I don't trust the Apple/MS licensing / code signing teams, but I do trust the MS defender team to do much better job. They're not directly connected to a source of profit.

macintux 6y ago

Where does the author belittle those who prefer a different answer?

craigsmansion 6y ago
By posing false dichotomies: "do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests, or do you believe they're a malevolent entity?" It's perfectly reasonable to believe that Apple is acting in Apple's best interest without attributing malevolence. By downplaying rational arguments: "I think the privacy arguments are far-fetched (because others are worse)" By using loaded terms: "Dogwhistles The privacy squad mobilised" Presenting strawmen: "if I have the code, build the code, nothing can hide in the code. This is a fallacy that people buy in to thanks to effective marketing " Lying by omission: "It's not feasible for an individual to maintain the list of trustworthy or untrustworthy parties that Apple does." It's perfectly feasible for a group of individuals. I'll take any group distro maintainers over Apple's word. He really doesn't just sound like an Apple apologist; he is one.
- macintux 6y ago
  Fair points, I should have re-read it after seeing the GP’s comment.
- zepto 6y ago
  You’re exaggerating, and then falling into the same traps you are accusing him of. A lot to people are claiming Apple is a malevolent entity. In context, it is reasonable for him to rebut that. I agree with you about his use of loaded terms, and the dismissiveness. The straw man you cite isn’t a straw man. It is a solid argument. https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=5706 https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=5706 The lie of omission you assert isn’t a lie. No group of distro maintainers has solved the problem Apple is solving. The author used the word ‘feasible’. This is currently true, but doesn’t need to remain so. The fact that you are technically literate enough to know about distro maintainers, and trust them does not mean it is feasible for everyone to do so. “He really doesn’t just sound like an Apple apologist; he is one.” If that isn’t a loaded term, I don’t know what is.
  - craigsmansion 6y ago
    > A lot to people are claiming Apple is a malevolent entity. In context, it is reasonable for him to rebut that. The exclusive "or" in "do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests, or do you believe they're a malevolent entity?" still makes it a false dichotomy. > The straw man you cite isn’t a straw man. It is a solid argument. "if I have the code, build the code, nothing can hide in the code.": is not something someone knowledgeable would ever claim, only that having the code and building the code will be at least as safe or safer than not having the code at all. Presenting it as "nothing can hide in the code" and then attacking that is, in my opinion, a strawman argument. > The author used the word ‘feasible’. And he is correct in that. No single individual can maintain the software integrity of an entire operating system, but a group of people can do so. The omission here is that that group of people need not be Apple. The argument here is that without Apple taking control of the user's software the user would fall prey to the privacy violating practices of the likes of Google and Microsoft, which is not true. Hence the "lie by omission". > If that isn’t a loaded term, I don’t know what is. The term is from the article: "While I'm going to sound like an Apple apologist," He claims he is not X, but has given no argument why he shouldn't be considered X and has presented a lot of arguments on why he should be considered X. He has presented no reason to assume he is not a devoted Apple user, or in his words, an "Apple apologist". In short, I'm not sure I'm exaggerating, but that I'm willing to disagree on.
stouset 6y ago
Further, GP is outright belittling those that disagree with them with the Stockholm syndrome comment.

orf 6y ago

The internet is a malicious place, filled with the non-technical and uninformed. I guess we’ll wait for you to design a better trust-based system that allows you to stop malicious software from executing on N different machines without needing N users to do anything.

brainzap 6y ago
Norton Antivirus will protect me
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Nortan Antivirus. Download now, free 6 month trial.
- iso1210 6y ago
  I trust in McAfee, the software is as stable as the founder
zepto 6y ago
It’s unfortunate that this is a response to a bulveristic comment. This really is a very important problem, indeed perhaps the most important problem in computer science today.
- api 6y ago
  The real solution is a least privilege hardened operating system that limits the damage both in terms of malicious effects and data exfiltration/ surveillance. Exposing permissions to users is also a hard UI/UX problem. Code signing and OCSP and such are band aids to cover the fact that our OSes have deeply inadequate security models. They all date back to the days when the net was far less hostile or in some cases before WANs were a common thing. Web browsers run code from everywhere and do a decent but not perfect job of this. It’s possible.
  - zepto 6y ago
    I’d say this is only one half. Many malicious effects involve social engineering, fraud, etc, and are not about exfiltration of files.

jb1991 6y ago

Your tone here does not seem proportionally appropriate to the level of discourse this article is attempting. The fact of the matter is that computers offer myriad ways to compromise your life and behave maliciously, and avoiding that is a tall challenge for any company. Apple is trying it their way, and you can try it yours. But to call it Stockholm Syndrome is an unfortunate take on these efforts.

jhardy54 6y ago
Can you explain why? You've offered assertions but haven't explained why you feel that way.
- jb1991 6y ago
  I don't follow... what did you want me to explain and what assertions are you referring to. If you mean, the assertion that Apple users are suffering Stockholm Syndrome is an inappropriate discourse, I'm not sure how to better explain that.
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    Maybe you could start by why you think it's inappropriate?
    - coldtea 6y ago
      Because it's a "mass psychology" BS explanation based on the premise of "others are misguided/idiots/sheep/Stockholmed and I know the truth/true freedom" - as opposed to a good faith argument, understaning that it's an ideological preference and that others (including people with 10 times the degrees, career experience, computer science knowledge of the author, can think otherwise). If that very basic thing needs to be spelt out, I'm not sure how any discussion is possible...
- zepto 6y ago
  It’s a form of bulverism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

JKCalhoun 6y ago

> Why would I assume any company would act in my interests when they have clear incentives to increase their profits and control by acting counter to them? I get what you're saying, but (as an Apple fanboy) I have to point out that Apple's incentives are to act in your, the customer's, interests since that is what they are selling now. They are differentiating themselves from the Googles by taking user privacy seriously. If they act against that they lose their key advantage. Trust but verify perhaps?

staticman2 6y ago
It's not in my interest to have Apple censors control what web browser I run on my phone or what games I can play on my phone.
- revscat 6y ago
  This is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- zepto 6y ago
  You aren’t their customer.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I’m an Apple customer and their interests don’t always line up with mine.
    - zepto 6y ago
      By ‘customer’ I mean target customer in a marketing sense. In this sense, you are not their customer. I am not either.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago

ajharrison 6y ago

I’m so fucking bored of this Stallman-esque stance on technology. Don’t like, use something else.

crazygringo 6y ago

I conclude the opposite: Yes. I mean really very obviously yes. And Microsoft. And Google. I assume they're acting in my interests because they have clear incentives to increase their profits by giving me useful helpful products that I'll buy. That's the entire premise of competition and the free market. The invisible hand gives consumers what they want. If, as a company, you don't, then you go out of business. If this were a communist country where the Party performed validation checks? With no choice between products? Then no. But in a competitive free market? Absolutely. In fact I'm relying on their motive to increase profits in order to trust that they'll act responsibly. What can you trust more than someone else's self-interest, at the end of the day?

bitmunk 6y ago
Tobacco.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Comcast.

bigbubba 6y ago

People really want to believe these corporations are charitable organizations, not inhuman slow AIs optimizing for profit. The propaganda departments of these corporations really do a number on people.

sonotathrowaway 6y ago
I read the article and you seem to sidestep all the arguments and facts they present, instead just saying their a brainwashed by propaganda. Not as convincing an argument, sadly.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Veen 6y ago

Perhaps we should think about this from a utilitarian perspective. There are obvious security advantages to app signing. But there are also negative implications for privacy and availability. Given tens of millions of non-technical users, is app signing likely to result in more good than bad, taking into account the fact that it can be turned off? I don’t know the answer, but I’m pretty sure those who relentlessly focus on the possible downsides don’t know either. (Pretending to be able to see into the minds and motivations of people you don’t know is rarely helpful. You have no grounds to attribute users’ behavior and opinions to Stockholm Syndrome, and it doesn’t apply anyway: no one is held hostage or abused in this scenario)

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
The key is in understanding that the trade off is an illusion. App signing is de facto blacklisting. Anyone can get an app signed but Apple maintains a naughty list. It's just anti-virus by another name. But you don't need signed apps for that, only hashes. And you don't have to phone home for that, only download the latest naughty list whenever it changes so you can check against it locally.
zeusflight 6y ago
> There are obvious security advantages to app signing. But there are also negative implications for privacy and availability. App signing exists elsewhere without sacrificing privacy. Most Linux packages, for example, are signed with GPG keys. The difference is that Linux only cares about installing trusted packages. It doesn't care about applications that are already installed after verification. Apple insists on having the ability to revoke something that's already installed. There are two issues here: 1. Is it reasonable to revoke permissions for an installed package? It could be argued that it will help stop malicious apps that were discovered after they were distributed. However, it could equally as well be that Apple wants more control over devices and hold developers to ransom. Their recent treatment of developers indicate that this concern is not at all misplaced. The least Apple could do is warn the user about a revoked certificate and ask if they still want to proceed (like how browsers do in the same scenario). However, it just refuses outright. 2. Apple chose a very bad method to implement online certificate revocation. OCSP is meant for server certificate validation. OCSP stapling is preferred over plain OCSP due to privacy concerns. Stapling cannot be used in this context. This method unfortunately ruins privacy and spill user information everywhere. They could have chosen some other more private method, like an updatable CRL. > I’m pretty sure those who relentlessly focus on the possible downsides don’t know either. As I said, there are more private ways to push revocation status. Apple always claimed that the device lockdown was to ensure privacy. This oversight shows how hollow that claim is. Important part to notice is the false dichotomy of freedom vs security. The argument that negligent users will screw up if given freedom. This is wrong for two reasons: 1. Defaults vs restrictions: Keep the defaults secure and slightly hard to modify for normal users. But don't restrict those who need alternatives. 2. Security can be achieved without locking everything down and remote controlling it. See web browsers for example. We run JS from all insecure sources, but cannot access sensitive resources (like camera, file access etc) without users' permission. The same can be achieved on OS with sandboxing, microkernels etc. > no one is held hostage or abused in this scenario Abuse is not always apparent to the abused. User rights are gradually eroded away in the name of security, giving users enough time to get accustomed to it. There may be escape hatches now, but they are slowly getting closed. For example, we considered PCs that don't allow us to install another OS as abusive. However, we don't hold mobile devices to the same standard. Unfortunately, this normalization of abuse doesn't just affect those who accept it. The rest of us are left without a choice. That criticism is definitely valid.

coldtea 6y ago

>If this unacceptable mess is "doing it well", perhaps the whole idea is doomed and should not be attempting to do it at all. Well, "unacceptable mess" are your words. It's totally acceptable to me that there could be issues on a feature / launch that need to be ironed out, unless we're talking about aviation software or pacemakers. If we deemed "unacceptable" any misstep or early issue, we wouldn't even have fire, a relatively tried and tested technology, that still has its issues... >No. I mean really very obviously no. The question is not an absolut one. You should read it "do you trust Apple is acting in your best interests OVER any random app you might install or website you visit?". Not to mention they don't even do the kind of tracking the original "sky is falling" post assumed they do: https://blog.jacopo.io/en/post/apple-ocsp/ https://blog.jacopo.io/en/post/apple-ocsp/ As this post says, "Now that you know the actual facts, if you think your privacy is put at risk by this feature more than having potential undetected malware running on your system, go ahead [and disable the checking via /etc/hosts]". >It's great that the author loves to exist within the limits and restrictions imposed by Apple, but don't expect me to go along with your Stockholm Syndrome and belittle me for differing. The author is a security specialist, not some random dude. And he made his point with technical arguments, not hand waving.

alfonsodev 6y ago
But this thing frezzes your whole computer, it happen to me while switching internet providers, I could have worked perfectly fine offline, but I've lost hours, which I'm not getting back. I don't know if there has been an apology but I would like to see one. Edit: By saying this I'm not endorsing OP exact words, but the failure is not a minor, besides hours of work lost, it was a major stress, as I though I would have to take the computer to repair, or replace it, and I can still manage, but many people can't afford it right now.
8bitsrule 6y ago
Spin, spin, spin. I learned to distrust Apple's hardware after I bought my last (i)Mac. I've see no reason to think it or its software's gotten more trustworthy. (The company that released the Apple II manual was trustworthy. That company was buried out behind the shed long ago.)

lmilcin 6y ago

Whether something is or isn't acceptable is completely separate from whether it is done well. Guns can be well engineered, but that does in no way answer whether it is or isn't acceptable to own one.

quelsolaar 6y ago

I'm entirely fine with people running "Trust" systems. But not when the platforms do it by force. If you want to pay McAfee, or some other service to force your computer to only run trusted code, then that's your choice. I might even be fine if Apple or Microsoft offered it as a service you have to pay extra for. The problem is when one entity can lock down a platform entirely. Its a problem when its not a choice the user have. Its also a problem that even when the user wants all code to be verified, they cant choose who it gets verified by. If yesterdays disaster had happen to a third party trust company, and not Apple, a lot of people would be looking for a new trust vendor today. Thats what should happen in a non-monopolistic market.

johncolanduoni 6y ago
Mac market share is less than 10% in the US, even lower in other countries. I personally know at least one person who is considering not buying one next time around just because of this incident. Some people use tools that lock them onto a Mac, but most of that is just people that have to develop for Macs (and they’re stuck no matter what Apple does, because they need to test on Macs). The iOS/App Store monopoly arguments are one thing, but 10% is a monopoly now? Just because a company sells a product that has some things one might want that no other market players bother combined with some things that they don’t like, doesn’t mean they’re “exploiting a monopoly”.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > The iOS/App Store monopoly arguments are one thing, but 10% is a monopoly now? It goes the other direction. If you want to develop for iOS you have to get a Mac even if you don't want one. Moreover, this behavior is objectionable regardless of market share, because a platform excluding alternative stores segregates that platform into a different market. If you're a developer whose customers use a Mac, and Apple starts operating the Mac App Store the same as the iOS one, it doesn't matter that they have 10% market share because that 10% of the PC market is 100% of your app customers and the relevant market isn't PCs, it's app distribution to a given customer base.
  - 6y ago

foobiekr 6y ago

I do trust apple over a hundred different developers with random practices. I found out not long ago that a tool I was using had no hygiene practices at all - they grabbed random versions of things they packaged up, had no meaningful audit trail at all, no means to notify (or even awareness that this might be a consideration) essentially no meaningful code review and so on. I noted this because I was investigating a bug for the project and gradually the reality became clear. At the very least, Apple is one step above mayhem and negligence.

amelius 6y ago
McDonald's food never makes me sick. One time I went to a different restaurant, and I found out that they had no hygiene practices at all. At least McDonald's is one step above mayhem, and it therefore is where I eat all my dinners.
- foobiekr 6y ago
  That's the wrong analogy. The right analogy is Apple is acting as a restaurant inspector. They may miss a lot, but they accomplish _something_.

summitsummit 6y ago

> Why would I assume any company would act in my interests when they have clear incentives to increase their profits and control by acting counter to them? Even without perverse incentives, why would another agent in your environment have any reason to go out of their way to have your best interest at heart?

viraptor 6y ago

> Neither Microsoft I see more nuance here. I don't trust the Apple/MS licensing / code signing teams, but I do trust the MS defender team to do much better job. They're not directly connected to a source of profit.