3 ms·

> Beyond being technically incorrect (a firewall with a whitelist still works) ... Does it really have to spelled out to you - it is meaningless to use an appl

> Beyond being technically incorrect (a firewall with a whitelist still works) ... Does it really have to spelled out to you - it is meaningless to use an application firewall when you are not the one creating and controlling the whitelist!! > if you don't trust Apple not to surreptitiously access your data, you can't rely on Apple-managed security mechanisms to enforce it. Many of us don't - and that is why an operating system is extendable and we use third-party softwares on it. Just like we use anti-virus software on our OS. And sometimes we also use non-Apple softwares for products or features over Apple's because the third-party has a better product. > The person I replied to had an even sillier version Silly for you who are just evading the actual issue and instead want to try and focus the debate to "let's discuss your beliefs instead, and pretend everything is normal with an OS vendor deliberately crippling a useful software". Yes, Apple does want access to your personal data. Yes, the deliberate crippling of firewalls on the macOS is an an ATTACK by Apple against its users towards this end. And yes, malwares can exploit the whitelist to hijack these whitelisted process. All the other irrelevant babble you spouted on how you have to be "firewall admin" itself is laughable when all you have to do is toggle a button to control whether an app is allowed to connect to the internet. > Defending against the OS vendor is close to impossible It needn't be if the OS vendor has good intentions. And that's no excuse to shut up and not criticize them.

acdha 6y ago
> Yes, Apple does want access to your personal data. Yes, the deliberate crippling of firewalls on the macOS is an an ATTACK by Apple against its users towards this end. And yes, malwares can exploit the whitelist to hijack these whitelisted process. You need to think about this from a security perspective rather than that initial emotional response. You claim but have no evidence that Apple wants personal data and will not obey their own privacy policy. Again, if you believe that, use something else because that level of unethical behavior is incompatible with the level of trust you’re placing in them. Continuing the theme, Apple did not “deliberately cripple” the firewall. ipfw still works, a VPN still gets all of your traffic, but when they added a new user-level socket filter they made the decision to exempt core services which are either unsafe to disable or only have effect when you voluntarily opt-in to their terms of service. You may disagree with this but it’s not an attack without some evidence of malice. And, yes, it’s possible that someone can find an exploit in something like Photos or iMessage. The question you should be asking is how often that would stop an attacker because they wouldn’t have permission to disable your local firewall rules. You can click allow, and that’s why malware commonly approves itself, too. This kind of local firewall is appealing for giving the illusion of security but most people are not going to be able to meaningfully assess the risk (“oh, a connection to AWS. Narrows it right down!”) and in practice these tools train people to click allow because after thousands of false positives that’s always worked. Enabling one for the apps on the list is especially prone to that because they only access Apple’s own servers.
- webmobdev 6y ago
  > You need to think about this from a security perspective An application firewall is a SECURITY software. Crippling it is stupid. And that is exactly why people are very pissed at Apple for doing so. > Apple did not “deliberately cripple” the firewall. Yes, they did - they crippled all APPLICATION firewalls. An application firewall controls what apps can access the internet. By deliberately creating a new API with a BACKDOOR to allow some Apple apps to connect to the internet, and forcing all firewalls to use only that API, Apple is intentionally crippling them. > they made the decision to exempt core services which are either unsafe to disable or only have effect when you voluntarily opt-in There are many who have been using such Application firewalls for years together, on previous versions of macOS, blocking such "core" services that they don't care about ... they are "core" only to Apple, not for users who don't use it. > The question you should be asking is how often that would stop an attacker because they wouldn’t have permission to disable your local firewall rules. This is just a diversionary argument from the fact that crippling firewalls and giving default internet access to some apps actually weakens the overall security of a system. > This kind of local firewall is appealing for giving the illusion of security There is no illusion - if you don't use iCloud, Maps, App Store etc., they don't need to unnecessarily connect to the internet and waste our bandwidth, or worse access and transfer our personal data. The same applies to any app on your system. Their job is to block internet access to specified apps and modern application firewalls do this in a user-friendly. It is gross abuse by Apple to cripple this ability in their OS.
  - acdha 6y ago
    > There is no illusion - if you don't use iCloud, Maps, App Store etc., they don't need to unnecessarily connect to the internet and waste our bandwidth, or worse access and transfer our personal data Which is exactly what happens now. You’re spending a lot effort protecting against an imaginary problem rather than the kinds of attacks which actually cause problems. If this terrifies you so much, add some ipfw rules and move on. Better yet, think about your threat model and block it at the firewall so you don’t have to rely on Apple to protect you from what you fear Apple will do.
    - 6y ago

acdha 6y ago

> Yes, Apple does want access to your personal data. Yes, the deliberate crippling of firewalls on the macOS is an an ATTACK by Apple against its users towards this end. And yes, malwares can exploit the whitelist to hijack these whitelisted process. You need to think about this from a security perspective rather than that initial emotional response. You claim but have no evidence that Apple wants personal data and will not obey their own privacy policy. Again, if you believe that, use something else because that level of unethical behavior is incompatible with the level of trust you’re placing in them. Continuing the theme, Apple did not “deliberately cripple” the firewall. ipfw still works, a VPN still gets all of your traffic, but when they added a new user-level socket filter they made the decision to exempt core services which are either unsafe to disable or only have effect when you voluntarily opt-in to their terms of service. You may disagree with this but it’s not an attack without some evidence of malice. And, yes, it’s possible that someone can find an exploit in something like Photos or iMessage. The question you should be asking is how often that would stop an attacker because they wouldn’t have permission to disable your local firewall rules. You can click allow, and that’s why malware commonly approves itself, too. This kind of local firewall is appealing for giving the illusion of security but most people are not going to be able to meaningfully assess the risk (“oh, a connection to AWS. Narrows it right down!”) and in practice these tools train people to click allow because after thousands of false positives that’s always worked. Enabling one for the apps on the list is especially prone to that because they only access Apple’s own servers.

webmobdev 6y ago
> You need to think about this from a security perspective An application firewall is a SECURITY software. Crippling it is stupid. And that is exactly why people are very pissed at Apple for doing so. > Apple did not “deliberately cripple” the firewall. Yes, they did - they crippled all APPLICATION firewalls. An application firewall controls what apps can access the internet. By deliberately creating a new API with a BACKDOOR to allow some Apple apps to connect to the internet, and forcing all firewalls to use only that API, Apple is intentionally crippling them. > they made the decision to exempt core services which are either unsafe to disable or only have effect when you voluntarily opt-in There are many who have been using such Application firewalls for years together, on previous versions of macOS, blocking such "core" services that they don't care about ... they are "core" only to Apple, not for users who don't use it. > The question you should be asking is how often that would stop an attacker because they wouldn’t have permission to disable your local firewall rules. This is just a diversionary argument from the fact that crippling firewalls and giving default internet access to some apps actually weakens the overall security of a system. > This kind of local firewall is appealing for giving the illusion of security There is no illusion - if you don't use iCloud, Maps, App Store etc., they don't need to unnecessarily connect to the internet and waste our bandwidth, or worse access and transfer our personal data. The same applies to any app on your system. Their job is to block internet access to specified apps and modern application firewalls do this in a user-friendly. It is gross abuse by Apple to cripple this ability in their OS.
- acdha 6y ago
  > There is no illusion - if you don't use iCloud, Maps, App Store etc., they don't need to unnecessarily connect to the internet and waste our bandwidth, or worse access and transfer our personal data Which is exactly what happens now. You’re spending a lot effort protecting against an imaginary problem rather than the kinds of attacks which actually cause problems. If this terrifies you so much, add some ipfw rules and move on. Better yet, think about your threat model and block it at the firewall so you don’t have to rely on Apple to protect you from what you fear Apple will do.
  - 6y ago