4 ms·

Isn't the walled garden and locked down OS/hardware supposed to prevent these things?

nine_k 5y ago
Only provably correct software would prevent such things. A walled garden could make it simpler to enforce that only software proved correct can be installed, but without the proof, it does not guarantee much,,only makes certain things less probable. Writing provably correct software us now a rare and expensive engineering feat. Most consumer OSes have nothing of thus sort, sadly. And I mean just the limited set of system software, not third-party installable apps, of course.
- d0mine 5y ago
  "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/faq.html https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/faq.html
- fulafel 5y ago
  Formal correctness proofs are both unattainable and insufficient. We don't know how to do it at the required scale, and it doesn't save us from flawed formal specifications, we'll have the bugs in the formal requirements instead of in the code. There are more cost efficient and proven ways to effectively address these kinds of vulnerabilities, like limiting complexity, using programming language features to eliminate classes of bugs, using other verifiable engineering disciplines, and compartmentalisation. Proofs also have their place locally in verifying small components. But making this commercially viable would large numbers of customers and users who are willing to make big compromises in functionality, features, third party apps etc.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    Limiting complexity is often not an option, because the complexity is of the subject area. Things like image format decoders are easiest to produce formal analysis and proofs for. It's sadly still too expensive and slow to produce. Fuzzing as a mandatory testing step could be useful in some cases. I agree about bugs in specifications though :(
    - fulafel 5y ago
      In this case limiting complexity would have worked: don't support frivolous amounts of image codecs (like the fax format here), just support 1-2, and make sure there is high assurance of the safety using known methods (security oriented code design, memory safe language, fuzzing, and sandboxing).
simion314 5y ago
>Isn't the walled garden No, only real security helps, some dude reviewing GUI or business related rules help with nothing, and Apple security automated checks are week, stronger sandboxes are needed in wall gardens or walled gardens with a gate.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
viktorcode 5y ago
No. It is supposed to mitigate these things. In a complex real world system there's no such thing as perfect security.
- fartcannon 5y ago
  No, it's supposed to make Apple's shareholders rich. It doesn't do jack (as the article clearly shows) for security.
npteljes 5y ago
Whoever advertised that, they lied. There's no actual way to prevent these things - aside from not participating at all.
WhyNotHugo 5y ago
It prevents third-parties from introducing these kind of vulnerabilities, but it doesn't prevent Apple from introducing them. It just makes it really hard to find (and fix) them.

Only provably correct software would prevent such things. A walled garden could make it simpler to enforce that only software proved correct can be installed, but without the proof, it does not guarantee much,,only makes certain things less probable. Writing provably correct software us now a rare and expensive engineering feat. Most consumer OSes have nothing of thus sort, sadly. And I mean just the limited set of system software, not third-party installable apps, of course.

d0mine 5y ago
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/faq.html https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/faq.html
fulafel 5y ago
Formal correctness proofs are both unattainable and insufficient. We don't know how to do it at the required scale, and it doesn't save us from flawed formal specifications, we'll have the bugs in the formal requirements instead of in the code. There are more cost efficient and proven ways to effectively address these kinds of vulnerabilities, like limiting complexity, using programming language features to eliminate classes of bugs, using other verifiable engineering disciplines, and compartmentalisation. Proofs also have their place locally in verifying small components. But making this commercially viable would large numbers of customers and users who are willing to make big compromises in functionality, features, third party apps etc.
- nine_k 5y ago
  Limiting complexity is often not an option, because the complexity is of the subject area. Things like image format decoders are easiest to produce formal analysis and proofs for. It's sadly still too expensive and slow to produce. Fuzzing as a mandatory testing step could be useful in some cases. I agree about bugs in specifications though :(
  - fulafel 5y ago
    In this case limiting complexity would have worked: don't support frivolous amounts of image codecs (like the fax format here), just support 1-2, and make sure there is high assurance of the safety using known methods (security oriented code design, memory safe language, fuzzing, and sandboxing).

simion314 5y ago

>Isn't the walled garden No, only real security helps, some dude reviewing GUI or business related rules help with nothing, and Apple security automated checks are week, stronger sandboxes are needed in wall gardens or walled gardens with a gate.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

viktorcode 5y ago

No. It is supposed to mitigate these things. In a complex real world system there's no such thing as perfect security.

fartcannon 5y ago
No, it's supposed to make Apple's shareholders rich. It doesn't do jack (as the article clearly shows) for security.

npteljes 5y ago

Whoever advertised that, they lied. There's no actual way to prevent these things - aside from not participating at all.

WhyNotHugo 5y ago

It prevents third-parties from introducing these kind of vulnerabilities, but it doesn't prevent Apple from introducing them. It just makes it really hard to find (and fix) them.