4 ms·
> But in reality, it's the sanest solution to this problem. Absolutely not. It puts Apple in total control over user's software. You have to place all of you
by davexunit 13y ago
> But in reality, it's the sanest solution to this problem.
Absolutely not. It puts Apple in total control over user's software. You have to place all of your trust in Apple that the binary you're running is actually build from the source code it is supposed to be.
Now, over in the free digital world, this problem is being addressed sanely. For example, NixOS and GNU Guix are tackling the issues of reproducible builds and package signing that can use a distributed web of trust. This way, no one has to trust a single company/entity or build machine. Debian is also after reproducible builds.
- dfc 13y agoThis is a big thing for the Tor project: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-one-cyberwar-and-global-compromise https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-o... https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-two-technical-details https://blog.torproject.org/blog/deterministic-builds-part-t...
- 3pt14159 13y agoSanest if you already trust Apple with root, which if you are using an Apple computer, you do.
- Zarel 13y ago> Absolutely not. It puts Apple in total control over user's software. Well, yes, but your OS vendor is already in total control over its users' software. The only difference this makes is that you don't have to trust anyone else.