Why do you call it a deliberate backdoor when the Apple developers (see elsewhere in this thread) have said this was a bug?
Before macOS Big Sur / Catalina, many of these application firewalls - Lulu, Little Snitch, HandsOff, TripMode, RadioSilence etc. - all used their own kernel extensions to effectively monitor and block any processes from connecting to the internet.
Firewalls are system security softwares. And naturally Apple would prefer to oversee and have this in-built in their OS. Apple also wants to discourage kernel extensions on macOS (they have some good reasons - a poorly designed kernel extension can make the OS unstable; but mostly its about feature control with Apple).
So they informed all such firewall app developers that their individual kernel extensions will no longer be allowed, and Apple had instead created an OS API specifically for their use case. (They described the features it would have and invited them to give their feedback). And so all application firewalls were forced to update their apps and use this OS API.
But this API had an undisclosed, in-built list of Apple approved applications that no firewall was allowed to block. Someone created that list. Someone added that list in the system, and coded the API to specifically give them special privileges to bypass any application firewalls.
Bugs are accidental. Backdoors like these are intentional.
(You can however take exception to the usage of "Backdoor" here - perhaps from Apple's perspective it was a good design decision as many of these services go wacko, and sometimes even freeze your system, when they aren't allowed to do what they are coded to, like do some operation over the internet. I've often seen CPU spikes and slowdowns when you block some of these services.)
> It’s worth noting that Big Sur and its predecessors are built to assume that they can talk to Apple at any time, but when we don’t allow it, a few unwanted side effects pop up. For example, the keyboard sometimes takes longer to wake up from sleep mode. Or, in certain situations, the Mullvad app takes longer to detect that the computer is online.
- https://mullvad.net/en/blog/2020/11/16/big-no-big-sur-mullva...
(Ofcourse, as a developer, I can sympathize with the Apple developers - when you design a product to use the internet, you don't really think hard about all kinds of use cases where internet access is deliberately denied).
Why wouldn't you, though? That seems like a pretty big oversight. Lazy at best, negligent at worst. Not everyone in the world has constant internet access, and it seems ridiculous to design an _operating system_ with that assumption. I like to take an eBook reader to the park, for example. Prior to owning that device, I took a laptop when learning a new programming language. If that laptop had been running BigSur, I'd see all these same issues based on Apple's un-thought-out "design decisions".
Without spending a lot of time sshd has allowLists (AllowGroups) and match directives
Sudo also has per group config
As a user on any operating system what you can and can’t do is controlled by a list
Perhaps the issue is the list isn’t user controlled ?
Perhaps the issue falls into the “I own and control my device” vs “we sell you a safe, foot gun safe, easy to use device (in their opinion)”
Back doors are typically not disclosed to the user, and can't be turned off. So for example an automatic software update mechanism isn't a back door, as the user is aware of it and can typically turn it off if they are concerned about security.
An undisclosed mechanism that allows Apple apps to circumvent firewalls does very much fit the description of a back door.
Intent doesn't matter with regards to back doors. Most back doors are not made with malicious intent, or at least the vendors usually claim that they only had good intentions for the back door. (Eg. see the recent reports where a router manufacturer had a secret password that they claimed was only used for software updates)
The danger about back doors is that malicious software can use the back doors to circumvent the security measures, just like Patrick Wardle demonstrated that it was possible to use Apple's content filter exclusion to circumvent firewalls.
They're lying.
They can say whatever they like, it's another story they've got no credibility. It was quite obvious it was very much a deliberate action (just look at the naming, itself)