3 ms·

What you want is basically how it works. On both phone platforms and PWAs, all permissions are visible to the user explicitly. All of them can be revoked at a

by ajross 2mo ago

What you want is basically how it works. On both phone platforms and PWAs, all permissions are visible to the user explicitly. All of them can be revoked at any time. Apps are disallowed from requesting an already-denied permission. Obviously apps can tell if they haven't been granted a permission (even if you tried to fake this, they aren't dummies and will know if it's not working), and obviously third party software isn't under any obligation to work without them. But the platforms have done what the platforms can do, at the architecture side, really. The next stage is human-audited enforcement of malware, which this AliExpress nonsense might hopefully run afoul of.

xnx 2mo ago
> Obviously apps can tell if they haven't been granted a permission (even if you tried to fake this, they aren't dummies and will know if it's not working), How can they tell? For the permissions I can think of: location, filesystem, etc. it should be easy to lie/spoof.
drdexebtjl 2mo ago
>Obviously apps can tell if they haven't been granted a permission By design. This doesn’t need to be the case. It should be impossible to tell you have denied a permission. In TFA’s case, the browser could just keep processing audio but never hook it up to a real audio sink.
- ajross 2mo ago
  That does nothing but start an arms race. Fine, audio "works" but do you get noise? Can you read back the sounds you play? No, right? It doesn't work, QED. Now the platform needs to fake the noise. Likewise for any other hardware access you want, and most of them are harder. How do you fake local storage without storing anything? How do you fake Bluetooth access without virtualizing an entire device? Do you fake the screen dimensions to look like something else? Input latency? Where does it stop? No, "does this work" is among the easiest questions to answer in technology. We aren't going to win this war.
  - emctech 2mo ago
    The best you can do on the modern web is reduce your fingerprint footprint, though it comes at a cost of websites breaking from JS disabling, or local time zone anonymisation.
  - drdexebtjl 2mo ago
    > Can you read back the sounds you play? No, but you also can’t do that if the user approves your app’s permission to play audio, but has the volume permanently turned down to zero. > local storage Give the app a temporary, space-constrained store that isn’t shared with other apps. > bluetooth Don’t let apps access raw bluetooth signals, but instead ask the platform to display a pairing interface (possibly with a custom stylesheet), ask the platform to call you back when a specific device is in range, etc. > screen dimensions Not personal data. > input latency Fudge the numbers even when the user grants permission. This isn’t a war, it’s just engineering for the benefit and autonomy of the user, and not the platforms’ commercial interests.
    - ajross 2mo ago
      > This isn’t a war Fingerprinting and other quasi-malware techniques being used by desirable third party software are absolutely a war, otherwise we wouldn't have this permission structure in place in the first place. And as much as you believe the contrary, Alibaba et. al. are 100% smarter than you about how to exploit these tricks and will win. > Not personal data. LOL
      - drdexebtjl 2mo ago
        I don’t appreciate the personal attack. You don’t know me. Permissions have nothing to do with preventing fingerprinting, they have to do with user control. Every permission you add that the app can inspect is one extra bit of fingerprint, so it’s actually worse. In TFA’s case, if the app was simply not hooked up to an actual audio sink, they would still be able to use this mechanism for fingerprinting, since it’s the processing pipeline itself that leaves the fingerprint. Note that the article isn’t calling out for fingerprinting specifically. I’m sure AliExpress does more fingerprinting than this. The problem is specifically that they’re interfering with multipoint Bluetooth audio.
- victorbjorklund 2mo ago
  Soundd like a nightmare to build legitimate apps if you for example are building an app that uses the camera but you can’t in anyway tell that using the camera fails (because user had denied the permission 6 months ago and has no memory of it) and instead of being able to give a helpful error you are just ending up with I am guessing fake images (maybe just a black screen).
  - voakbasda 2mo ago
    The image could contain a message that it is disabled.
    - StingyJelly 2mo ago
      Then it is detectable. Those permissions should have a third option alongside allow and block - spoof.
    - victorbjorklund 2mo ago
      So we must also make it impossible for an app to read any images taken inside the app itself? You can’t literally make any apps at all
  - wotb 2mo ago
    Just because it's hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try. What about a popup saying "xyz has tried to access the camera a lot lately, continue blocking?"? Or apps can apply for set of 'core permissions' that can't be denied but are much more tightly controlled? Apple and Google are some of the biggest companies in the world, they don't deserve as much leeway as you're offering.

by ajross 2mo ago

xnx 2mo ago

> Obviously apps can tell if they haven't been granted a permission (even if you tried to fake this, they aren't dummies and will know if it's not working), How can they tell? For the permissions I can think of: location, filesystem, etc. it should be easy to lie/spoof.

drdexebtjl 2mo ago

>Obviously apps can tell if they haven't been granted a permission By design. This doesn’t need to be the case. It should be impossible to tell you have denied a permission. In TFA’s case, the browser could just keep processing audio but never hook it up to a real audio sink.

ajross 2mo ago
That does nothing but start an arms race. Fine, audio "works" but do you get noise? Can you read back the sounds you play? No, right? It doesn't work, QED. Now the platform needs to fake the noise. Likewise for any other hardware access you want, and most of them are harder. How do you fake local storage without storing anything? How do you fake Bluetooth access without virtualizing an entire device? Do you fake the screen dimensions to look like something else? Input latency? Where does it stop? No, "does this work" is among the easiest questions to answer in technology. We aren't going to win this war.
- emctech 2mo ago
  The best you can do on the modern web is reduce your fingerprint footprint, though it comes at a cost of websites breaking from JS disabling, or local time zone anonymisation.
- drdexebtjl 2mo ago
  > Can you read back the sounds you play? No, but you also can’t do that if the user approves your app’s permission to play audio, but has the volume permanently turned down to zero. > local storage Give the app a temporary, space-constrained store that isn’t shared with other apps. > bluetooth Don’t let apps access raw bluetooth signals, but instead ask the platform to display a pairing interface (possibly with a custom stylesheet), ask the platform to call you back when a specific device is in range, etc. > screen dimensions Not personal data. > input latency Fudge the numbers even when the user grants permission. This isn’t a war, it’s just engineering for the benefit and autonomy of the user, and not the platforms’ commercial interests.
  - ajross 2mo ago
    > This isn’t a war Fingerprinting and other quasi-malware techniques being used by desirable third party software are absolutely a war, otherwise we wouldn't have this permission structure in place in the first place. And as much as you believe the contrary, Alibaba et. al. are 100% smarter than you about how to exploit these tricks and will win. > Not personal data. LOL
    - drdexebtjl 2mo ago
      I don’t appreciate the personal attack. You don’t know me. Permissions have nothing to do with preventing fingerprinting, they have to do with user control. Every permission you add that the app can inspect is one extra bit of fingerprint, so it’s actually worse. In TFA’s case, if the app was simply not hooked up to an actual audio sink, they would still be able to use this mechanism for fingerprinting, since it’s the processing pipeline itself that leaves the fingerprint. Note that the article isn’t calling out for fingerprinting specifically. I’m sure AliExpress does more fingerprinting than this. The problem is specifically that they’re interfering with multipoint Bluetooth audio.
victorbjorklund 2mo ago
Soundd like a nightmare to build legitimate apps if you for example are building an app that uses the camera but you can’t in anyway tell that using the camera fails (because user had denied the permission 6 months ago and has no memory of it) and instead of being able to give a helpful error you are just ending up with I am guessing fake images (maybe just a black screen).
- voakbasda 2mo ago
  The image could contain a message that it is disabled.
  - StingyJelly 2mo ago
    Then it is detectable. Those permissions should have a third option alongside allow and block - spoof.
  - victorbjorklund 2mo ago
    So we must also make it impossible for an app to read any images taken inside the app itself? You can’t literally make any apps at all
- wotb 2mo ago
  Just because it's hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try. What about a popup saying "xyz has tried to access the camera a lot lately, continue blocking?"? Or apps can apply for set of 'core permissions' that can't be denied but are much more tightly controlled? Apple and Google are some of the biggest companies in the world, they don't deserve as much leeway as you're offering.