4 ms·
> Apple did the right thing by only adding warnings for more sensitive areas like your Downloads or Documents folder, but any more than that and I think it'll c
by boogies 6y ago
> Apple did the right thing by only adding warnings for more sensitive areas like your Downloads or Documents folder, but any more than that and I think it'll cause more harm than good.
Browsing history is not sensitive‽
- codezero 6y agoI think they are implying apple can’t control the sensitivity of third party tools across the board, so it’s up to chrome to figure out how to protect your browsing history, and they need to improve their file system layout or APIs to protect their users.
- boogies 6y ago>third party tools >it’s up to chrome https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25267165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25267165: > ~/Library/Safari/LocalStorage because Safari names the files in this directory according to the web sites that you visit! [emphasis added]
- codezero 6y agoZing, thanks for pointing that out.
- saagarjha 6y agoSafari uses APIs to protect its data directory that isn’t made available to third-party apps.
- EricE 6y agoAnd those aren't good enough as he was able to bypass them with ls - command line tool ran without privilege inside of a sandboxed app. This is a serious issue for data leakage.
- fbelzile 6y agoSorry, I didn't mean to argue for apps to be able to read your browsing history. The main point I was trying to make was that apps having network access without warning is more of a security/privacy issue than apps being able to read local files without warning. It's probably why Little Snitch became so popular and why I think Apple is in the process of shoving them out of the market by building it into the OS (I'm guessing!).