4 ms·

People discover vulns all the time. A vuln is not theatre. You patch the vuln and you are secure. A vlun does not security theatre make. A fundamental design f

by dcow 4y ago

People discover vulns all the time. A vuln is not theatre. You patch the vuln and you are secure. A vlun does not security theatre make. A fundamental design flaw in the security model or system which renders it irrelevant, on the other hand, is a problem. Are you saying there’s a fundamental flaw in Apple’s implementation of secure boot, code signatures, and sandboxing that makes it irrelevant?

lapcat 4y ago
> You patch the vuln and you are secure. Except you aren't, because there's an endless series of them. > Are you saying there’s a fundamental flaw in Apple’s implementation of secure boot, code signatures, and sandboxing that makes it irrelevant? I said TCC, and you said everything except TCC. (Although sandboxing is pretty insecure on the Mac too.) The fundamental design flaw is that Mac OS X started as an open system, and Apple tried to tack all of these security features on afterward, without otherwise redesigning the operating system. There are two many legacy features, including "must not break" features, too many openings, too much interoperation, too much complexity. Moreover, it often seems to me that Apple security engineers are not particularly experienced with Mac OS X, which is why an old hack like me can relatively easily find things that they've overlooked.
- dcow 4y ago
  All I'm sayings is it's kinda weird to respond to people who are trying to make a system more secure by saying "well it will never be perfect so fuck it it's just theater". I mean really? I think we agree on everything else.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > it will never be perfect This is a straw man.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      "Real world attacks (e.g., XCSSET) and researchers have consistently shown that TCC, while often a nuisance to users, does not present a significant obstacle to attackers." https://www.sentinelone.com/blog/session-cookies-keychains-ssh-keys-and-more-7-kinds-of-data-malware-steals-from-macos-users/ https://www.sentinelone.com/blog/session-cookies-keychains-s...

by dcow 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

> You patch the vuln and you are secure. Except you aren't, because there's an endless series of them. > Are you saying there’s a fundamental flaw in Apple’s implementation of secure boot, code signatures, and sandboxing that makes it irrelevant? I said TCC, and you said everything except TCC. (Although sandboxing is pretty insecure on the Mac too.) The fundamental design flaw is that Mac OS X started as an open system, and Apple tried to tack all of these security features on afterward, without otherwise redesigning the operating system. There are two many legacy features, including "must not break" features, too many openings, too much interoperation, too much complexity. Moreover, it often seems to me that Apple security engineers are not particularly experienced with Mac OS X, which is why an old hack like me can relatively easily find things that they've overlooked.

dcow 4y ago
All I'm sayings is it's kinda weird to respond to people who are trying to make a system more secure by saying "well it will never be perfect so fuck it it's just theater". I mean really? I think we agree on everything else.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > it will never be perfect This is a straw man.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    "Real world attacks (e.g., XCSSET) and researchers have consistently shown that TCC, while often a nuisance to users, does not present a significant obstacle to attackers." https://www.sentinelone.com/blog/session-cookies-keychains-ssh-keys-and-more-7-kinds-of-data-malware-steals-from-macos-users/ https://www.sentinelone.com/blog/session-cookies-keychains-s...