5 ms·

There is no technical reason that Apple cannot maintain the exact same review processes that they have today, or even more stringent ones (that’d actually be go

by __d 5y ago

There is no technical reason that Apple cannot maintain the exact same review processes that they have today, or even more stringent ones (that’d actually be good), BUT instead of then putting the app in the AppStore, they simply sign it with with the AppleBlessed(TM) key, and give the binary back to the developer. Whatever might happen to that binary between Apple signing it, and the iOS installer getting hold of it DOES NOT MATTER — if the signature is still good, then it’s no worse off than if it was put in the AppStore. The security argument is total BS.

EMIRELADERO 5y ago
That wouldn't really change this for the better. This whole thing is about Apple not having the final say.
- __d 5y ago
  Sure, but it illustrates that Apple's argument that "it would weaken security" is rubbish. It is technically possible to allow side-loading with exactly the same security as provided by the AppStore, if they simply used a signature to indicate that an app had passed review. It would still use the same sandpit, still use the same permissions system, still able to be disabled by Apple, etc, etc. Without the argument that "it's less secure", it becomes obvious that the only motivation is commercial.
  - EMIRELADERO 5y ago
    But then what would be the point if the "anticompetitive" measures are still there? If Apple can still get the final say, they can still refuse to sign any IPA for any reason.
    - zamadatix 5y ago
      The point is sideloading vs app store isn't a function of security like Apple constantly touts. The point is not that this method in particular answers all possible problems one could have with the lack of side-loading or that this is necessarily the actual method that should be the one implemented.
Jetrel 5y ago
Uh, the whole point of code signing is a checksum — it's valid only for an exact match to the original executable that got signed. If it changes, the checksum and code signing become invalid. That's the only reason they even created it.
- __d 5y ago
  Code-signing, performed by the developer, means the application can be checked for corruption (and to a degree, that the developer has an ok status with Apple). But it doesn't indicate that the application has undergone Apple's review process. For that, you'd need a separate signature, signed by an Apple-owned private key rather than a developer key. I'm not actually advocating this, just pointing out that it would provide the same security as the review process does now, without the need to download apps only from the AppStore. And so ... Apple's "but the security" argument is rubbish.

by __d 5y ago

EMIRELADERO 5y ago

That wouldn't really change this for the better. This whole thing is about Apple not having the final say.

__d 5y ago
Sure, but it illustrates that Apple's argument that "it would weaken security" is rubbish. It is technically possible to allow side-loading with exactly the same security as provided by the AppStore, if they simply used a signature to indicate that an app had passed review. It would still use the same sandpit, still use the same permissions system, still able to be disabled by Apple, etc, etc. Without the argument that "it's less secure", it becomes obvious that the only motivation is commercial.
- EMIRELADERO 5y ago
  But then what would be the point if the "anticompetitive" measures are still there? If Apple can still get the final say, they can still refuse to sign any IPA for any reason.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    The point is sideloading vs app store isn't a function of security like Apple constantly touts. The point is not that this method in particular answers all possible problems one could have with the lack of side-loading or that this is necessarily the actual method that should be the one implemented.

Jetrel 5y ago

Uh, the whole point of code signing is a checksum — it's valid only for an exact match to the original executable that got signed. If it changes, the checksum and code signing become invalid. That's the only reason they even created it.

__d 5y ago
Code-signing, performed by the developer, means the application can be checked for corruption (and to a degree, that the developer has an ok status with Apple). But it doesn't indicate that the application has undergone Apple's review process. For that, you'd need a separate signature, signed by an Apple-owned private key rather than a developer key. I'm not actually advocating this, just pointing out that it would provide the same security as the review process does now, without the need to download apps only from the AppStore. And so ... Apple's "but the security" argument is rubbish.