Hacker News Reader

Comment by 43920 | Hacker News Reader

Wouldn't a sandboxed Zoom downloaded directly from them be equally secure?

> Wouldn't a sandboxed Zoom downloaded directly from them be equally secure?

More relevantly, wouldn't a sandboxed Zoom downloaded from Apple's store be equally secure even if you could install different apps from developers you trust more outside of the store?

Apple’s rejected a huge number of App updates for security reasons. It’s not a huge benefit, but it does exist.

And also allowed a jailbreak app in the iOS App Store. Yes, it only happened once (that I know of), but it still shows you can't really be oblivious to their practices.

So out of the millions of apps on the App Store, they slipped up once? Sounds like a really good success rate.

That's just the one jailbreak that ended up in the news. There's been many other of bad things that have been pulled.

>been many other of bad things that have been pulled

A jailbreak app making it to the app store being bad, and "apple's walled gardens are bad", are fundamentally incompatible.

Jailbreak apps are bad for Apple. Walled gardens are bad for users. It's not complicated.

I, a user, am extremely appreciative of Apple's walled garden. I've never once had to worry that the app I'm downloading is crammed full of malware because I trust that Apple's processes are robust and will work well in 99.999% of all circumstances.

A walled garden is not the same as a curated app store. You could have the same benefit if apple would allow non-app-store apps to be installed after flipping a switch, tethering with a Mac or some other voodoo.

Apple does give you the ability to install non-app-store apps (some without tethering), e.g. sideloading or enterprise certificates, although I agree it's not as easy as flipping a switch.

They should also provide a way to downgrade iOS via Xcode for those with a dev account, but that's another story.

People who are precious about security never obtain apps that aren't generally approved and vetted by professionals anyway. Forcing this deciscion onto everybody is just going to push the people who want a free and open platform into places you dont want them. The benefits of openness don't go away just because apple said so.

We get Zoom, we used to install Java (remember when it was bundled with crapware in hope you'll forget to uncheck a checkbox?). Companies routinely strong-armed users into getting malware. And I doubt popular game mods are all that strongly reviewed by security experts, but are quite popular with tech people.

App Store policies are a poor replacement for collective action, of course, but let's not pretend we can just become immune to hostile by sheer force of will.

I care about security, but that doesn't preclude me from jailbreaking my iphone and running dozens of tweaks that haven't been "vetted by professionals", along with sideloaded apps that haven't been through Apple's vetting process either.

My MacBook runs homebrew which currently lists 84 packages installed plus their dependencies, very few of which will have been professionally vetted, and of the 127 apps in my /Applications folder only a third of them came from the Mac App Store, and I would estimate that a quarter of the others aren't even signed with a paid developer certificate.

I want the apps that I get from Apple directly to be safe. I want to know that when I put my faith in the App Store that I'm not lulling myself into a false sense of security. I want my parents and girlfriend, who are not technical people, to have that same sense of security without them having to learn entire programming languages to vet source code themselves.

The benefits of closed systems don't go away just because you say so.

Apple can be bad at doing what they claim to be doing and also be doing the wrong things. The nice way this works is that Apple curates a bunch of software they think is safe, and I can run whatever I want on my device. The worst of both worlds is that I can't run what I want, but sometimes malicious things get through Apple's checks.

Yes, but would a typical user know or care if the app they downloaded from a web site was sandboxed and would otherwise have been approved by the App Store if it was submitted there? And if not, how could someone like John Gruber make that claim of safety on anything other than iPhone and iPad? Taking the Zoom example on a parent thread above, look at what happens when you’re installing a Zoom client on the Mac without the strict enforcements of the iOS App Store: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22736608

This just doesn't seem like a terribly difficult problem. Web browsers have figured it out. Any webpage that isn't served over SSL says "Not Secure" right at the top.

I can think of a dozen ways which the OS could prominently display "Not Secure" for non-sandboxed applications, in a way that wouldn't preclude or hinder users from using such applications if they really wanted to.

I wonder what's a decent way to do this with a CLI app

Reply on news.ycombinator.com