4 ms·

It's funny, because I actually agree with both of you. We should generally trust our primary OS vendor, because otherwise we're all going to need therapy. But

It's funny, because I actually agree with both of you. We should generally trust our primary OS vendor, because otherwise we're all going to need therapy. But we shouldn't have to trust them. That is, the system should be designed such that we have some amount of "defense in depth" where a mistake by Apple during the review of one of the 3.5 million apps doesn't result in an exploit. I think this is why Apple and the others are trending towards the design that they are, because a deep capability approach that's integrated into the UI helps offload some of the complexity and overhead of managing that liability at scale.

saagarjha 5y ago
> I think this is why Apple and the others are trending towards the design that they are, because a deep capability approach that's integrated into the UI helps offload some of the complexity and overhead of managing that liability at scale. I don't think this is an accurate description of what Apple is doing at all. If anything, they're moving more towards the direction where they are implicitly trusted and if you don't trust them you don't get any security.
kaba0 5y ago
Apple does have pretty great security story. On ios, it’s like state of the art, and it’s ok on macos as well. And no, walled garden is not the security of apple, but proper sandboxing is. So even without extensive app review (which is frankly, not extensive at all) a rouge application should not be able to do much damage.