5 ms·

Knowing Apple's achievements in pwn2own, this most likely won't increase the real security... Whatever you do, security always boils down to aware user, thus it

by mbq 15y ago

Knowing Apple's achievements in pwn2own, this most likely won't increase the real security... Whatever you do, security always boils down to aware user, thus it is in fundamental contradiction to this company philosophy.

mike-cardwell 15y ago
How can you possibly claim that this wont increase security?
- mbq 15y ago
  Because it is like X-raying people coming through front door to check if they are hiding anything metal having opened and unsupervised kitchen door. Plumbers are banned, yet you can still be killed with a ceramic knife by a polite assassin or with metal pipe by a brutal crook.
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago
    That analogy bears no resemblance to the issue at hand. These changes improve security. Just because they don't improve the security to 100%, that doesn't make them worthless.
    - mbq 15y ago
      The main problem is that it comes with a obvious loss of functionality which I doubt that can be leveraged with security gain -- the other thing is that it gives a faux sense of security to the user (i.e. yes, I have agreed for full file system access, but it was sandboxed, right?). Finally, the system is as weak as the weakest elements, and those seemingly lay in their own code (and can be fixed without hurting the functionality).
      - mike-cardwell 15y ago
        So if Google decided to remove the sandboxing functionality in the next version of Android and just run every app under the same user id, that wouldn't reduce the security of Android devices?
        mbq 15y ago
        Again, I'm not against adding seemingly redundant additional security layers, I'm against calling sandbox an universal cure for everything and using it to constrain the user in morally ambiguous way. Android system is also damaged because it makes users to root the device to do things which might be done without such elevation of privileges and, what's worse, violating warranty.
- flomo 15y ago
  > How can you possibly claim that this wont increase security? I've honestly never heard of a third-party Mac application which contains spyware or steals personal information. It just does not seem like a huge problem which needs to be solved. (Of course there have been security issues with things like Adobe Acrobat and MS Office. But big ISV software is the least likely to be affected by app store restrictions.)
  - mbq 15y ago
    MacDefender?
    - flomo 15y ago
      Perhaps I should have said 'legit' application. On the Windows side, there's things like file-sharing software which is packaged with toolbars and malware. That kind of thing is unheard of in the Mac world, especially in the app store.
statictype 15y ago
Besides security, sandboxing is a good way to protect the User's system from poorly written apps.

by mbq 15y ago

mike-cardwell 15y ago

How can you possibly claim that this wont increase security?

mbq 15y ago
Because it is like X-raying people coming through front door to check if they are hiding anything metal having opened and unsupervised kitchen door. Plumbers are banned, yet you can still be killed with a ceramic knife by a polite assassin or with metal pipe by a brutal crook.
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  That analogy bears no resemblance to the issue at hand. These changes improve security. Just because they don't improve the security to 100%, that doesn't make them worthless.
  - mbq 15y ago
    The main problem is that it comes with a obvious loss of functionality which I doubt that can be leveraged with security gain -- the other thing is that it gives a faux sense of security to the user (i.e. yes, I have agreed for full file system access, but it was sandboxed, right?). Finally, the system is as weak as the weakest elements, and those seemingly lay in their own code (and can be fixed without hurting the functionality).
    - mike-cardwell 15y ago
      So if Google decided to remove the sandboxing functionality in the next version of Android and just run every app under the same user id, that wouldn't reduce the security of Android devices?
      - mbq 15y ago
        Again, I'm not against adding seemingly redundant additional security layers, I'm against calling sandbox an universal cure for everything and using it to constrain the user in morally ambiguous way. Android system is also damaged because it makes users to root the device to do things which might be done without such elevation of privileges and, what's worse, violating warranty.
flomo 15y ago
> How can you possibly claim that this wont increase security? I've honestly never heard of a third-party Mac application which contains spyware or steals personal information. It just does not seem like a huge problem which needs to be solved. (Of course there have been security issues with things like Adobe Acrobat and MS Office. But big ISV software is the least likely to be affected by app store restrictions.)
- mbq 15y ago
  MacDefender?
  - flomo 15y ago
    Perhaps I should have said 'legit' application. On the Windows side, there's things like file-sharing software which is packaged with toolbars and malware. That kind of thing is unheard of in the Mac world, especially in the app store.

statictype 15y ago

Besides security, sandboxing is a good way to protect the User's system from poorly written apps.