3 ms·
> However, it is imperfect, since apps within the same profile can still communicate through IPC, so if apps cooperate, network access can still be achieved. F
by ignoramous 4mo ago
> However, it is imperfect, since apps within the same profile can still communicate through IPC, so if apps cooperate, network access can still be achieved.
Folks brings up 'IPC' as if this is some chink in the armour in AOSP. It isn't. 'Apps' pretty much on most consumer OSes can 'IPC' their way with other co-operating apps to 'achieve' network access from behind a firewall, just the same.
> since many apps communicate with Play Services and as far as I understand (but I may be mistaken) Play Services does work that involves internet access on behalf of other apps
If the OS or its privileged component will fchown the socket to the origin app, think the INTERNET permission will be enforced as expected.
- saagarjha 4mo agoThere is very little IPC that is allowed for apps that do not share a development team on iOS.
- ignoramous 4mo ago> There is very little IPC I am not familiar with iOS internals, but does "very little IPC" mean "zero IPC"? Because if we are talking IPC in the context of bypassing permission checks, I imagine, 'very little' doesn't cut it?
- saagarjha 4mo agoI said "very little" because someone is probably going to be like "oh well you can have app A start allocating a bunch of memory and then app B gets a memory warning and this passes 1 bit of information"
- ignoramous 4mo agoExactly: Some will use "IPC" as a stand in for side channels / memory safety, if it suits their agenda. I don't think it is a valid argument to make that the permission model is broken because "IPC".
- fragmede 4mo agoWhat stops the app from opening a link in Safari to trackmyshit.com/uuid-uuid-uuid-uuid that closes itself.
- saagarjha 4mo agoYou'd need Safari to keep cookies and other persistent storage for the site.