3 ms·

This could also be considered a sandbox bypass. A device/application is given a limited set of capabilities to ensure that if something does go wrong, the affec

This could also be considered a sandbox bypass. A device/application is given a limited set of capabilities to ensure that if something does go wrong, the affected area is small and well known. This effectively eliminates those safeguards and provides a gaping hole that most systems designers would think had been closed vis other configuration. As others have pointed out: kiosks, schools, prisons, POS, the check-in device at a Dr. office, and any other managed device have a reasonable expectation yo behave as their admins have configured them for the sake of not necessarily the person who has the device, but also the person sitting next to them that they could possibly effect by misuse of the device. Systems have firewalls, ulimits, pledge, acls, permissions, sometimes physical lock and keys to prevent users of the system from doing things that owners or operators of the system have decided should not be permitted. As others have mentioned, this might be for security, compliance, CYA, or just reducing the number of variables to consider in a system.

lucideer 3y ago
> This could also be considered ... I agree but you've very appropriately used the word "could" here. The gp bemoaned Google not prioritising this issue as a serious security concern. Whether it could theoretically be classified under security if X, Y & Z were true, due to the to-the-letter definition of access control threat models, doesn't mean that in this specific case of a consumer device, that using a browser from settings is a high severity risk. Even if it were a bypass of something like Nessus/Crowdstrike/et al (and not just consumer parental controls), it still wouldn't represent a significant threat as a simple kiosk escape in isolation. Any definition that classifies this as the gp is proposing is a theoretical nitpick, not an actual considered threat model.

lucideer 3y ago

> This could also be considered ... I agree but you've very appropriately used the word "could" here. The gp bemoaned Google not prioritising this issue as a serious security concern. Whether it could theoretically be classified under security if X, Y & Z were true, due to the to-the-letter definition of access control threat models, doesn't mean that in this specific case of a consumer device, that using a browser from settings is a high severity risk. Even if it were a bypass of something like Nessus/Crowdstrike/et al (and not just consumer parental controls), it still wouldn't represent a significant threat as a simple kiosk escape in isolation. Any definition that classifies this as the gp is proposing is a theoretical nitpick, not an actual considered threat model.