6 ms·

Apple servers are whitelisted in adblocking and firewall APIs, so this move makes sure Safe Browsing works when the user or some app messes up with those.

gruez 6y ago
Why would apple's servers be whitelisted but not google's? Considering all the google devices/software out there (eg. android, chrome), not whitelisting google is probably going to cause more issues than not whitelisting apple.
- tchalla 6y ago
  Why should whitelisting depend on popularity?
  - gruez 6y ago
    Why wouldn't it? More popular = more users = more people complaining when stuff breaks = more political pressure to get it fixed.
    - tchalla 6y ago
      Why should we allow stuff just because “stuff breaks”? It’s totally fine to have “stuff break” if they don’t benefit the objective laid out. We “break” a lot of stuff in our society with our laws.
      - gruez 6y ago
        >Why should be allow stuff just something “it breaks”? what??
        tchalla 6y ago
        It is fine to break stuff even if it is popular as it doesn't achieve the overall objective. There's no compulsion to allow something just because it is popular.
        gruez 6y ago
        In the context of this discussion (blocking at enterprises), I doubt any sysadmin is going to be able to convince the leadership that blocking all google services is an acceptable trade-off. If you're doing the blocking yourself on your own network then sure whatever, you don't really care whether google stuff breaks, but you probably also have safebrowsing disabled, or know how to whitelist the safebrowsing endpoint yourself if you need it, so the whitelist argument isn't relevant in that context.
        tchalla 6y ago
        > In the context of this discussion (blocking at enterprises), I doubt any sysadmin is going to be able to convince the leadership that blocking all google services is an acceptable trade-off. If that was the case, here was the original comment. > Apple servers are whitelisted in adblocking and firewall APIs What exactly did you disagree with?
        tialaramex 6y ago
        Nope. Mother Nature doesn't have to care whether her rules are popular, the laws of thermodynamics are actually very unpopular, but they apply anyway. However people can disobey our laws and so if they aren't popular enough they're worthless. The UK used to have laws controlling the ownership of dogs. Each dog required a license, licenses were taxed and you could be refused a license. But that law was very unpopular, and so it was abolished - not because licensing dog ownership wasn't a good idea, but because even if it was a great idea it was too unpopular to succeed.
        tchalla 6y ago
        > Mother Nature doesn't have to care whether her rules are popular, the laws of thermodynamics are actually very unpopular, but they apply anyway. I am pretty sure whitelisting servers don't follow the laws of Thermodynamics or nature.
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  Because Google runs ad servers. Using an ad blockers would be pointless if Google domains were allowed to bypass.
  - gruez 6y ago
    Again, like I said previous comment google runs a bunch of other services that you can't just block the entire google ASN and not expect stuff to break. As for who's doing the blocking, there are basically two groups: enterprise sysadmins (or their vendors) and hobbyists running pi-hole at home. The former would certainly care about breakage, and likely isn't concerned about ads. Not to mention if they block safebrowsing (or google software updates) and they get hacked because of it, that'd look really bad on them. Hobbyists would care less about breakage and more about ads, but I suspect the same hobbyists don't care much for safebrowsing and probably has it disabled so whether it gets whitelisted or not is irrelevant.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > google runs a bunch of other services Trust does not compartmentalize.
      - gruez 6y ago
        The point isn't that you must trust google or anything, but that if you are serving users other than yourself, blocking the entirety of google isn't a viable option. In the case that you're only doing it for yourself, you likely have safeblocking disabled or know how to whitelist the safebrowsing endpoint yourself (it's a separate domain) that it's a non-issue.
        JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > if you are serving users other than yourself, blocking the entirety of google isn't a viable option This is a fair assumption to challenge. Lots of developers co-mingling their traffic with an ad company doesn't mean everyone has to whitelist their servers. It's an impediment. But Apple has navigated those.
- ComodoHacker 6y ago
  Because Apple doesn't control Google's servers.

gruez 6y ago

Why would apple's servers be whitelisted but not google's? Considering all the google devices/software out there (eg. android, chrome), not whitelisting google is probably going to cause more issues than not whitelisting apple.

tchalla 6y ago
Why should whitelisting depend on popularity?
- gruez 6y ago
  Why wouldn't it? More popular = more users = more people complaining when stuff breaks = more political pressure to get it fixed.
  - tchalla 6y ago
    Why should we allow stuff just because “stuff breaks”? It’s totally fine to have “stuff break” if they don’t benefit the objective laid out. We “break” a lot of stuff in our society with our laws.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >Why should be allow stuff just something “it breaks”? what??
      - tchalla 6y ago
        It is fine to break stuff even if it is popular as it doesn't achieve the overall objective. There's no compulsion to allow something just because it is popular.
        gruez 6y ago
        In the context of this discussion (blocking at enterprises), I doubt any sysadmin is going to be able to convince the leadership that blocking all google services is an acceptable trade-off. If you're doing the blocking yourself on your own network then sure whatever, you don't really care whether google stuff breaks, but you probably also have safebrowsing disabled, or know how to whitelist the safebrowsing endpoint yourself if you need it, so the whitelist argument isn't relevant in that context.
        tchalla 6y ago
        > In the context of this discussion (blocking at enterprises), I doubt any sysadmin is going to be able to convince the leadership that blocking all google services is an acceptable trade-off. If that was the case, here was the original comment. > Apple servers are whitelisted in adblocking and firewall APIs What exactly did you disagree with?
        tialaramex 6y ago
        Nope. Mother Nature doesn't have to care whether her rules are popular, the laws of thermodynamics are actually very unpopular, but they apply anyway. However people can disobey our laws and so if they aren't popular enough they're worthless. The UK used to have laws controlling the ownership of dogs. Each dog required a license, licenses were taxed and you could be refused a license. But that law was very unpopular, and so it was abolished - not because licensing dog ownership wasn't a good idea, but because even if it was a great idea it was too unpopular to succeed.
        tchalla 6y ago
        > Mother Nature doesn't have to care whether her rules are popular, the laws of thermodynamics are actually very unpopular, but they apply anyway. I am pretty sure whitelisting servers don't follow the laws of Thermodynamics or nature.
ViViDboarder 6y ago
Because Google runs ad servers. Using an ad blockers would be pointless if Google domains were allowed to bypass.
- gruez 6y ago
  Again, like I said previous comment google runs a bunch of other services that you can't just block the entire google ASN and not expect stuff to break. As for who's doing the blocking, there are basically two groups: enterprise sysadmins (or their vendors) and hobbyists running pi-hole at home. The former would certainly care about breakage, and likely isn't concerned about ads. Not to mention if they block safebrowsing (or google software updates) and they get hacked because of it, that'd look really bad on them. Hobbyists would care less about breakage and more about ads, but I suspect the same hobbyists don't care much for safebrowsing and probably has it disabled so whether it gets whitelisted or not is irrelevant.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > google runs a bunch of other services Trust does not compartmentalize.
    - gruez 6y ago
      The point isn't that you must trust google or anything, but that if you are serving users other than yourself, blocking the entirety of google isn't a viable option. In the case that you're only doing it for yourself, you likely have safeblocking disabled or know how to whitelist the safebrowsing endpoint yourself (it's a separate domain) that it's a non-issue.
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > if you are serving users other than yourself, blocking the entirety of google isn't a viable option This is a fair assumption to challenge. Lots of developers co-mingling their traffic with an ad company doesn't mean everyone has to whitelist their servers. It's an impediment. But Apple has navigated those.
ComodoHacker 6y ago
Because Apple doesn't control Google's servers.