4 ms·

That's one point of privacy. Meanwhile, they protect vast amounts of your data with encryption, especially if you opt in to the most protection. I don't have

That's one point of privacy. Meanwhile, they protect vast amounts of your data with encryption, especially if you opt in to the most protection. I don't have any wish to promote Apple, but those are not comparable. Even though I have hated Apple's closed App Store policy.

eptcyka 1y ago
What do you mean by your data being protected by vast amounts of encryption? Can you verify those claims beyond trusting what Apple tells you? Isn’t the commenter above insinuating that a targeted individual can be compromised anyway?
- theshrike79 1y ago
  The amount of money you can get for a iPhone 0day confirms it. If they were playing fast and loose with cryptography and encryption, we'd have a lot more exploits in the open.
  - eptcyka 1y ago
    What do you mean by that? I don't think this follows at all.
    - theshrike79 1y ago
      If iPhones had flaws in the encryption or security, they WOULD be exploited and monetised. A zero day remote attack on an iOS device is worth so much money that you have to be _really_ ethical as a hacker not to sell it and report it to Apple for a small reward instead. The last time one was deployed "publicly" was against Jeff Bezos (or his wife) - one of the top10 richest people in the world anyway. And then it was patched for everyone.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        Apple owns the code and all it's visibility - you're not allowed to see it. They don't need a 0 day to compromise your device, they can just choose to do it at any point. You're simply trusting they don't.
        theshrike79 1y ago
        And you think not having a the source available hiders security researchers? It’s kind of what they do.
        const_cast 1y ago
        If the attack is targeted, it doesn't matter. Again, you're just trusting Apple not to do that. Please bear in mind that if the government asks, it's not like they have a choice.
        theshrike79 1y ago
        If the government "asks", EVERY company will fold. Apple is the only one building stuff so that they can't fold, even if they wanted to. You can turn on the extra protections and encryptions yourself at the cost of user experience.
        const_cast 1y ago
        The difference is the open source software is auditable - Apple necessarily isn't. Its not the same. Its not a user interface problem either, that's just a lame excuse. iMessage is end to end encrypted and is arguably one of the most pleasant to use messengers.
        cnst 1y ago
        Apple is the only one that effectively knows the Real Name of all their users, because you cannot do anything on an iOS device without signing up for an Apple Account first. It's virtually impossible to sideload anything on an iOS device without extensive developer know-how; but for Apple itself to do a targetted attack, would be a trivial task. Android is the privacy heaven by comparison. It's relatively trivial to get started with F-Droid and Aurora Store, and then you can install whichever apps you need, without providing any identifying information system-wide, without needing anything beyond the Android device itself. No PCs, no mandatory 0days, no exploits, no specific software/hardware requirements, no warez, no copyright infringement, just pure free software and a few warning dialogues from Google about the dangers of installing the third-party apps, before you can do whatever you wish with the hardware you paid for, on any Android device of any vendor.
  - ohdeargodno 1y ago
    >The amount of money you can get for a iPhone 0day confirms it. Less than for an Android 0day then. Yes, it's quite telling.
    - cnst 1y ago
      You got it wrong. An iOS 0day would be far more valuable, confirmed by the rest of the thread above.
      - ohdeargodno 1y ago
        No, an iOS 0day _is_ less valuable. Every exploit acquisition program pays out more for an Android RCE than it does for an iOS RCE. And it's not surprising: give iMessage a mean look and a .png that looks funny and it breaks under the pressure. The rest of the thread above is merely the delusions of an Apple fanboy, followed by dozens of people listing out reasons why an iPhone is more vulnerable to attacks, both from external actors _and_ from Apple collecting massive amounts of data and having total remote control of "your" device.
cnst 1y ago
The problem is that you cannot opt-out of the Apple Account. Which means that targetted attacks are trivial if the attacker possesses the resources.

eptcyka 1y ago

What do you mean by your data being protected by vast amounts of encryption? Can you verify those claims beyond trusting what Apple tells you? Isn’t the commenter above insinuating that a targeted individual can be compromised anyway?

theshrike79 1y ago
The amount of money you can get for a iPhone 0day confirms it. If they were playing fast and loose with cryptography and encryption, we'd have a lot more exploits in the open.
- eptcyka 1y ago
  What do you mean by that? I don't think this follows at all.
  - theshrike79 1y ago
    If iPhones had flaws in the encryption or security, they WOULD be exploited and monetised. A zero day remote attack on an iOS device is worth so much money that you have to be _really_ ethical as a hacker not to sell it and report it to Apple for a small reward instead. The last time one was deployed "publicly" was against Jeff Bezos (or his wife) - one of the top10 richest people in the world anyway. And then it was patched for everyone.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      Apple owns the code and all it's visibility - you're not allowed to see it. They don't need a 0 day to compromise your device, they can just choose to do it at any point. You're simply trusting they don't.
      - theshrike79 1y ago
        And you think not having a the source available hiders security researchers? It’s kind of what they do.
        const_cast 1y ago
        If the attack is targeted, it doesn't matter. Again, you're just trusting Apple not to do that. Please bear in mind that if the government asks, it's not like they have a choice.
        theshrike79 1y ago
        If the government "asks", EVERY company will fold. Apple is the only one building stuff so that they can't fold, even if they wanted to. You can turn on the extra protections and encryptions yourself at the cost of user experience.
        const_cast 1y ago
        The difference is the open source software is auditable - Apple necessarily isn't. Its not the same. Its not a user interface problem either, that's just a lame excuse. iMessage is end to end encrypted and is arguably one of the most pleasant to use messengers.
        cnst 1y ago
        Apple is the only one that effectively knows the Real Name of all their users, because you cannot do anything on an iOS device without signing up for an Apple Account first. It's virtually impossible to sideload anything on an iOS device without extensive developer know-how; but for Apple itself to do a targetted attack, would be a trivial task. Android is the privacy heaven by comparison. It's relatively trivial to get started with F-Droid and Aurora Store, and then you can install whichever apps you need, without providing any identifying information system-wide, without needing anything beyond the Android device itself. No PCs, no mandatory 0days, no exploits, no specific software/hardware requirements, no warez, no copyright infringement, just pure free software and a few warning dialogues from Google about the dangers of installing the third-party apps, before you can do whatever you wish with the hardware you paid for, on any Android device of any vendor.
- ohdeargodno 1y ago
  >The amount of money you can get for a iPhone 0day confirms it. Less than for an Android 0day then. Yes, it's quite telling.
  - cnst 1y ago
    You got it wrong. An iOS 0day would be far more valuable, confirmed by the rest of the thread above.
    - ohdeargodno 1y ago
      No, an iOS 0day _is_ less valuable. Every exploit acquisition program pays out more for an Android RCE than it does for an iOS RCE. And it's not surprising: give iMessage a mean look and a .png that looks funny and it breaks under the pressure. The rest of the thread above is merely the delusions of an Apple fanboy, followed by dozens of people listing out reasons why an iPhone is more vulnerable to attacks, both from external actors _and_ from Apple collecting massive amounts of data and having total remote control of "your" device.

cnst 1y ago

The problem is that you cannot opt-out of the Apple Account. Which means that targetted attacks are trivial if the attacker possesses the resources.