3 ms·

Why do people do this? Name a device with comparable mass market success that is remotely close to being as secure as the iPhone.

userbinator 2y ago
A lot of people are starting to realise that "secure" means "secure AGAINST the user".
- tptacek 2y ago
  Y... yes? That has always been the premise of Unix systems security?
  - userbinator 2y ago
    Not if the user is the one who actually owns the machine.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Yes, even then. Every sandboxing scheme ever devised has the same premise. That's why tools like Firejail were written. DRM/anticheat and anti-rootkit countermeasures are more or less the same technology.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    What GP obviously meant was "secure against the [rightful owner & user of the system]". That's never been the premise of *nix system security where the owner can ultimately do anything, no matter how self-destructive it is. You're changing the semantic definition of "user" to mean "secure against the [restricted user account]" and thus mocking an argument that was never made. Guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
luuurker 2y ago
Google's Pixel phones are usually known for having good security (from on-device hardware to fast and long - 7 years - security updates). And in this case you'd able to install the app even if it was banned from the official store... and no, my grandma never sideloaded malware, she uses the Play Store like everyone else. It doesn't sell as well as iPhones or is only available on a small number of countries, but that's a different question. Most people don't buy iPhones because their security is good... they just want an iPhone.
- qeternity 2y ago
  > Most people don't buy iPhones because their security is good... they just want an iPhone. You’re misunderstanding why people want an iPhone. There are many reasons, but “they just work” is a common refrain…and security underpins that.
  - luuurker 2y ago
    The thing is, your iPhone would still work very well if you sideloaded this app that was banned in Brazil. Even if you installed something malicious - something that should be a widespread problem on Android but isn't for some reason - the app would still run in the same sandbox that stops it from do a lot of bad things. iOS/Android is not Windows and Apple will always control that sandbox and OS updates. But I'm not going to insist on this, it's your phone after all... I just look at what happens in some countries where you go from a good situation to a bad one pretty quickly (eg: Russia, some things in the US, etc) and suddenly Apple bans a VPN that lets you read outside news and things like that and you're essentially f*cked. I don't see how being in this position is good for anyone.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  > to fast and long - 7 years - security updates It's worth pointing out that this is a very recent development in Android land that only arrived due to EU regulations. https://endoflife.date/pixel https://endoflife.date/pixel

userbinator 2y ago

A lot of people are starting to realise that "secure" means "secure AGAINST the user".

tptacek 2y ago
Y... yes? That has always been the premise of Unix systems security?
- userbinator 2y ago
  Not if the user is the one who actually owns the machine.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Yes, even then. Every sandboxing scheme ever devised has the same premise. That's why tools like Firejail were written. DRM/anticheat and anti-rootkit countermeasures are more or less the same technology.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  What GP obviously meant was "secure against the [rightful owner & user of the system]". That's never been the premise of *nix system security where the owner can ultimately do anything, no matter how self-destructive it is. You're changing the semantic definition of "user" to mean "secure against the [restricted user account]" and thus mocking an argument that was never made. Guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

luuurker 2y ago

Google's Pixel phones are usually known for having good security (from on-device hardware to fast and long - 7 years - security updates). And in this case you'd able to install the app even if it was banned from the official store... and no, my grandma never sideloaded malware, she uses the Play Store like everyone else. It doesn't sell as well as iPhones or is only available on a small number of countries, but that's a different question. Most people don't buy iPhones because their security is good... they just want an iPhone.

qeternity 2y ago
> Most people don't buy iPhones because their security is good... they just want an iPhone. You’re misunderstanding why people want an iPhone. There are many reasons, but “they just work” is a common refrain…and security underpins that.
- luuurker 2y ago
  The thing is, your iPhone would still work very well if you sideloaded this app that was banned in Brazil. Even if you installed something malicious - something that should be a widespread problem on Android but isn't for some reason - the app would still run in the same sandbox that stops it from do a lot of bad things. iOS/Android is not Windows and Apple will always control that sandbox and OS updates. But I'm not going to insist on this, it's your phone after all... I just look at what happens in some countries where you go from a good situation to a bad one pretty quickly (eg: Russia, some things in the US, etc) and suddenly Apple bans a VPN that lets you read outside news and things like that and you're essentially f*cked. I don't see how being in this position is good for anyone.
dns_snek 2y ago
> to fast and long - 7 years - security updates It's worth pointing out that this is a very recent development in Android land that only arrived due to EU regulations. https://endoflife.date/pixel https://endoflife.date/pixel