8 ms·

There was a ContentFilterExclusionList key in the /System/Library/Frameworks/NetworkExtension.framework/Versions/Current/Resources/Info.plist file. macOS 11.2 b

by _qulr 6y ago

There was a ContentFilterExclusionList key in the /System/Library/Frameworks/NetworkExtension.framework/Versions/Current/Resources/Info.plist file. macOS 11.2 beta 2 removed the ContentFilterExclusionList. Does that take 6 months?

boardwaalk 6y ago
It’s possible they were working on other changes so firewalls didn’t break the whitelisted components. They shouldn’t have been broken in the first place, but hey.
ilikepi 6y ago
> Does that take 6 months? If this one change is in a pool with tens of thousands of other possible changes, and it also has to go through one or more QA cycles? Sure, why not 6 months?
- sjwright 6y ago
  In some industries 6 months from initial report to consumer deployment would sound almost irresponsibly fast.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Sure, why not 6 months? Because the first WWDC preview version of Big Sur was released to developers on June 22, 2020, and Big Sur was released to the public on November 12, 2020, so Apple needs to be able to fix issues identified during the beta period much quicker than in 6 months.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Apple doesn't have to "fix issues identified during the beta period" much quicker than the release date. No OS does, including FOSS distros / OSes. Apple just has to fix "the most important issues" with the most bang for the buck identified during the beta period before release. Which they do. The ones they consider less important are put in a backlog. You can find "issues identified during beta releases" still open and unfixed for all OSes, some even going 10 years back, long after the release was out...
    - _qulr 6y ago
      > The ones they consider less important are put in a backlog. True, but this just proves my point. It still doesn't take 6 months to fix this issue... if they wanted to fix it. Deprioritizing it was a deliberate choice by Apple. The reason the exclusion list shipped to the public in Big Sur wasn't technical, the reason is that Apple's priorities are messed up. From my perspective, the explanation is simple: ContentFilterExclusionList wasn't a "bug", it was a deliberate "feature". So from Apple's perspective, there was nothing to "fix". At least one developer was told it "behaves as intended": https://twitter.com/david_ddw/status/1329017113709842437 https://twitter.com/david_ddw/status/1329017113709842437 Only the public backlash caused Apple to remove it.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        >True, but this just proves my point. It still doesn't take 6 months to fix this issue... if they wanted to fix it. Just because it was reported as an issue doesn't mean it was thought as a bug (or an issue to fix) by Apple. That's what they wanted to do. People coded it explicitly. >Deprioritizing it was a deliberate choice by Apple. Of course. Why wouldn't it be? >From my perspective, the explanation is simple: ContentFilterExclusionList wasn't a "bug", it was a deliberate "feature". Again, of course. Some people complained this was a bug, Apple thought it wasn't, the issue remained on the back burner, until some time it was given more consideration and was decided to fix. What I'm saying is "why this took 6 months" doesn't make much sense as a question. Why wouldn't it? Unless something is a show stopper or high impact bug, it would take time. Even to be accepted as an issue to fix in the first place will take time. Plus all the internal red tape.
        _qulr 6y ago
        > What I'm saying is "why this took 6 months" doesn't make much sense as a question. Why wouldn't it? For the 2nd or 3rd time in this thread, I have to remind that I was replying to a comment saying this: "That's why Apple has the Developer and Public Beta releases for iOS/OSX so that external users can provide feedback. And on this occasion just like on many other they will take action if necessary." So, maybe you should argue with that comment instead of with me? My point was that developers filed feedback about this issue during the betas, yet Apple did not address that feedback, and thus "That's why Apple has the Developer and Public Beta releases for iOS/OSX" is not a valid point in this context.
eyelidlessness 6y ago
My sweet summer child I hope you never have to develop or schedule software releases at a level of complexity where 6 months sounds anything less than luxurious.
- _qulr 6y ago
  I've been a professional Mac software engineer for 15 years. I've also lived my entire life in the North (which for some reason is called the Midwest).
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    See other comment re: realizing who I was responding to. Also I spent last winter up there (Saint Paul).
coldtea 6y ago
Noticing the issue, discussing it, setting meetings to agree to revert, and handling all other higher priority stuff before an eminent GM release and the most pressing x.1 update release, can take more than 6 months. Not to mention that "removing the ContentFilterExclusionList" is a hacky fix suggestion. Doesn't mean it's the actual hollistic fix, and there weren't other under the hood changes for this issue.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Not to mention that "removing the ContentFilterExclusionList" is a hacky fix suggestion. You've got in backwards. The ContentFilterExclusionList was itself a hack. It never should have existed. Some people are handwaving about a mysterious vague problem that calls for a ContentFilterExclusionList, but Little Snitch has existed for many many years on the Mac and has been able to block everything, including Apple services. There was no problem with that until Apple decided to exempt itself from getting blocked.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >You've got in backwards. The ContentFilterExclusionList was itself a hack. It never should have existed. It might or might not be a hack, but that's orthogonal to the functionality or whether it uses a ContentFilterExclusionList. The fact that it wasn't there before, or that it is a misguided feature idea, doesn't mean it was done as a quick and dirty implementation or that it's hastily made feature done via cutting corners. If you accept the need for your own apps to bypass user application filtering (eg. because you consider your traffic/apps integral to the OS operation) then that's the kind of thing you'd implement -- and you could do it with a team of 100, working for months with fine specs, to deliver the same thing. There's nothing inherently hacky about it. >There was no problem with that until Apple decided to exempt itself from getting blocked. That's neither here nor there though, as to whether it was done as a hack - or, to get back to the point, as to whether they could just rip it off trivially. People forget this is not just a single feature, but part of a change to how network filtering is done (not through a third party kernel extension anymore), accompanied with new APIs.
audunw 6y ago
> Does that take 6 months? You're assuming that changing that list is the only thing they needed to do. Have you thought about why they felt they needed that list to begin with? Maybe because they wanted to quality control that all their core services could graceful handle being blocked by a firewall first? That is, the job wasn't changing the list. The job was probably quality control of everything potentially blocked by that list. Or they just didn't think it was such an important issue. Most MacOS users by far probably don't care.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > You're assuming that changing that list is the only thing they needed to do. No, you're assuming that I'm making that assumption. Why would you assume that? > Most MacOS users by far probably don't care. It's frustrating that people keep ignoring the fact that I was directly replying to this comment: "That's why Apple has the Developer and Public Beta releases for iOS/OSX so that external users can provide feedback." If feedback during the betas does not make Apple take action, then the comment I was replying to was wrong. Your response seems a bit ironic, though, because public backlash is exactly what caused Apple to backtrack.

by _qulr 6y ago

boardwaalk 6y ago

It’s possible they were working on other changes so firewalls didn’t break the whitelisted components. They shouldn’t have been broken in the first place, but hey.

ilikepi 6y ago

> Does that take 6 months? If this one change is in a pool with tens of thousands of other possible changes, and it also has to go through one or more QA cycles? Sure, why not 6 months?

sjwright 6y ago
In some industries 6 months from initial report to consumer deployment would sound almost irresponsibly fast.
_qulr 6y ago
> Sure, why not 6 months? Because the first WWDC preview version of Big Sur was released to developers on June 22, 2020, and Big Sur was released to the public on November 12, 2020, so Apple needs to be able to fix issues identified during the beta period much quicker than in 6 months.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Apple doesn't have to "fix issues identified during the beta period" much quicker than the release date. No OS does, including FOSS distros / OSes. Apple just has to fix "the most important issues" with the most bang for the buck identified during the beta period before release. Which they do. The ones they consider less important are put in a backlog. You can find "issues identified during beta releases" still open and unfixed for all OSes, some even going 10 years back, long after the release was out...
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > The ones they consider less important are put in a backlog. True, but this just proves my point. It still doesn't take 6 months to fix this issue... if they wanted to fix it. Deprioritizing it was a deliberate choice by Apple. The reason the exclusion list shipped to the public in Big Sur wasn't technical, the reason is that Apple's priorities are messed up. From my perspective, the explanation is simple: ContentFilterExclusionList wasn't a "bug", it was a deliberate "feature". So from Apple's perspective, there was nothing to "fix". At least one developer was told it "behaves as intended": https://twitter.com/david_ddw/status/1329017113709842437 https://twitter.com/david_ddw/status/1329017113709842437 Only the public backlash caused Apple to remove it.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >True, but this just proves my point. It still doesn't take 6 months to fix this issue... if they wanted to fix it. Just because it was reported as an issue doesn't mean it was thought as a bug (or an issue to fix) by Apple. That's what they wanted to do. People coded it explicitly. >Deprioritizing it was a deliberate choice by Apple. Of course. Why wouldn't it be? >From my perspective, the explanation is simple: ContentFilterExclusionList wasn't a "bug", it was a deliberate "feature". Again, of course. Some people complained this was a bug, Apple thought it wasn't, the issue remained on the back burner, until some time it was given more consideration and was decided to fix. What I'm saying is "why this took 6 months" doesn't make much sense as a question. Why wouldn't it? Unless something is a show stopper or high impact bug, it would take time. Even to be accepted as an issue to fix in the first place will take time. Plus all the internal red tape.
      - _qulr 6y ago
        > What I'm saying is "why this took 6 months" doesn't make much sense as a question. Why wouldn't it? For the 2nd or 3rd time in this thread, I have to remind that I was replying to a comment saying this: "That's why Apple has the Developer and Public Beta releases for iOS/OSX so that external users can provide feedback. And on this occasion just like on many other they will take action if necessary." So, maybe you should argue with that comment instead of with me? My point was that developers filed feedback about this issue during the betas, yet Apple did not address that feedback, and thus "That's why Apple has the Developer and Public Beta releases for iOS/OSX" is not a valid point in this context.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

My sweet summer child I hope you never have to develop or schedule software releases at a level of complexity where 6 months sounds anything less than luxurious.

_qulr 6y ago
I've been a professional Mac software engineer for 15 years. I've also lived my entire life in the North (which for some reason is called the Midwest).
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  See other comment re: realizing who I was responding to. Also I spent last winter up there (Saint Paul).

coldtea 6y ago

Noticing the issue, discussing it, setting meetings to agree to revert, and handling all other higher priority stuff before an eminent GM release and the most pressing x.1 update release, can take more than 6 months. Not to mention that "removing the ContentFilterExclusionList" is a hacky fix suggestion. Doesn't mean it's the actual hollistic fix, and there weren't other under the hood changes for this issue.

_qulr 6y ago
> Not to mention that "removing the ContentFilterExclusionList" is a hacky fix suggestion. You've got in backwards. The ContentFilterExclusionList was itself a hack. It never should have existed. Some people are handwaving about a mysterious vague problem that calls for a ContentFilterExclusionList, but Little Snitch has existed for many many years on the Mac and has been able to block everything, including Apple services. There was no problem with that until Apple decided to exempt itself from getting blocked.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >You've got in backwards. The ContentFilterExclusionList was itself a hack. It never should have existed. It might or might not be a hack, but that's orthogonal to the functionality or whether it uses a ContentFilterExclusionList. The fact that it wasn't there before, or that it is a misguided feature idea, doesn't mean it was done as a quick and dirty implementation or that it's hastily made feature done via cutting corners. If you accept the need for your own apps to bypass user application filtering (eg. because you consider your traffic/apps integral to the OS operation) then that's the kind of thing you'd implement -- and you could do it with a team of 100, working for months with fine specs, to deliver the same thing. There's nothing inherently hacky about it. >There was no problem with that until Apple decided to exempt itself from getting blocked. That's neither here nor there though, as to whether it was done as a hack - or, to get back to the point, as to whether they could just rip it off trivially. People forget this is not just a single feature, but part of a change to how network filtering is done (not through a third party kernel extension anymore), accompanied with new APIs.

audunw 6y ago

> Does that take 6 months? You're assuming that changing that list is the only thing they needed to do. Have you thought about why they felt they needed that list to begin with? Maybe because they wanted to quality control that all their core services could graceful handle being blocked by a firewall first? That is, the job wasn't changing the list. The job was probably quality control of everything potentially blocked by that list. Or they just didn't think it was such an important issue. Most MacOS users by far probably don't care.

_qulr 6y ago
> You're assuming that changing that list is the only thing they needed to do. No, you're assuming that I'm making that assumption. Why would you assume that? > Most MacOS users by far probably don't care. It's frustrating that people keep ignoring the fact that I was directly replying to this comment: "That's why Apple has the Developer and Public Beta releases for iOS/OSX so that external users can provide feedback." If feedback during the betas does not make Apple take action, then the comment I was replying to was wrong. Your response seems a bit ironic, though, because public backlash is exactly what caused Apple to backtrack.