4 ms·

If your point of view is that you value the ability to execute code from random places on the internet more than security, perhaps that is the point you should

If your point of view is that you value the ability to execute code from random places on the internet more than security, perhaps that is the point you should have been making from the start. However, iOS makes the security trade off in the other direction. All an app's executable code must go through the app vetting process, and additional executable code cannot be added to the app without the app going through the app vetting process all over again. In contrast, Google has been unable to quash malware like Joker from inside the Play store because the malware gets downloaded and installed after the app makes it through the app vetting process and lands on a user's device. > Known as Joker, this family of malicious apps has been attacking Android users since late 2016 and more recently has become one of the most common Android threats... One of the keys to Joker’s success is its roundabout attack. The apps are knockoffs of legitimate apps and, when downloaded from Play or a different market, contain no malicious code other than a “dropper.” After a delay of hours or even days, the dropper, which is heavily obfuscated and contains just a few lines of code, downloads a malicious component and drops it into the app. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/09/joker-the-malware-that-signs-you-up-for-pricey-services-floods-android-markets/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/09/joker... iOS not having constant issues with malware like Joker inside their app store has nothing to do with "security through obscurity" and everything to do with making a different set of trade offs when setting up the security model.

saagarjha 2y ago
Downloading executable code is irrelevant; it’s easy to alter app behavior dynamically on either platform.
- NotPractical 2y ago
  I agree. But it's at least worth noting that Google has taken steps towards blocking this as well, and it will likely be fully blocked in a future release of Android. From what I understand, it's partially to protect apps from themselves rather than the OS from apps, however. Additionally, it breaks legitimate apps like Termux, which many Android users see as a major regression. I personally think it's just another example of Apple-ish security theater, but Google has been known to copy some unfortunate things from Apple in attempt to mirror their success (see also: headphone jack, SafetyNet). Regardless, it goes to show that Android security is still evolving and the referenced 2020 article likely doesn't reflect the current state of things.
beeboobaa3 2y ago
all of this malicious code still requires the user to grant the permissions, or exploit bugs in the operating system. same as ios, infinitely better than mac, windows and linux. apple might pretend they are secure because they usually manage to catch such things during review. this doesn't actually mean they are secure. end of the day, it's up to the user to choose what software they install, and what permissions they grant. if your security model includes taking all user choice away, forbidding them from running software that they wish to run, and essentially treating them like unsophisticated toddlers that need your guidance because you know best, then sure, you might view this as a problem. but at that point, you are the problem.
- GeekyBear 2y ago
  > apple might pretend they are secure because they usually manage to catch such things during review. this doesn't actually mean they are secure. The easiest way to see that Apple's security model is more robust is that tech websites don't have to warn users that they should fear the apps from inside the app store.
  - NotPractical 2y ago
    There's little evidence that this isn't simply because Apple is better at policing their store. It probably also helps that an Apple developer license costs $99/year, whereas Google Play has a one-time $25 fee. Keep in mind that the Play Store is just one of Google's many endeavors, whereas the iPhone is Apple's premier product, and as such, one of their top priorities. Regarding dynamic native code execution, please see saagarjha's comment and my reply. > Apple's security model It would be more accurate to say "the iOS security model", because as beeboobaa3 mentioned, macOS fully allows apps from outside the App Store, dynamic native code execution, and most other "insecure" things that are blocked on iOS.

saagarjha 2y ago

Downloading executable code is irrelevant; it’s easy to alter app behavior dynamically on either platform.

NotPractical 2y ago
I agree. But it's at least worth noting that Google has taken steps towards blocking this as well, and it will likely be fully blocked in a future release of Android. From what I understand, it's partially to protect apps from themselves rather than the OS from apps, however. Additionally, it breaks legitimate apps like Termux, which many Android users see as a major regression. I personally think it's just another example of Apple-ish security theater, but Google has been known to copy some unfortunate things from Apple in attempt to mirror their success (see also: headphone jack, SafetyNet). Regardless, it goes to show that Android security is still evolving and the referenced 2020 article likely doesn't reflect the current state of things.

beeboobaa3 2y ago

all of this malicious code still requires the user to grant the permissions, or exploit bugs in the operating system. same as ios, infinitely better than mac, windows and linux. apple might pretend they are secure because they usually manage to catch such things during review. this doesn't actually mean they are secure. end of the day, it's up to the user to choose what software they install, and what permissions they grant. if your security model includes taking all user choice away, forbidding them from running software that they wish to run, and essentially treating them like unsophisticated toddlers that need your guidance because you know best, then sure, you might view this as a problem. but at that point, you are the problem.

GeekyBear 2y ago
> apple might pretend they are secure because they usually manage to catch such things during review. this doesn't actually mean they are secure. The easiest way to see that Apple's security model is more robust is that tech websites don't have to warn users that they should fear the apps from inside the app store.
- NotPractical 2y ago
  There's little evidence that this isn't simply because Apple is better at policing their store. It probably also helps that an Apple developer license costs $99/year, whereas Google Play has a one-time $25 fee. Keep in mind that the Play Store is just one of Google's many endeavors, whereas the iPhone is Apple's premier product, and as such, one of their top priorities. Regarding dynamic native code execution, please see saagarjha's comment and my reply. > Apple's security model It would be more accurate to say "the iOS security model", because as beeboobaa3 mentioned, macOS fully allows apps from outside the App Store, dynamic native code execution, and most other "insecure" things that are blocked on iOS.