Hacker News Reader

Comment by brymaster | Hacker News Reader

> Users are vastly better protected from the kind of network surveillance they mention with Apple products, thanks to their curated, controlled approach to third party software distribution.

You have got to be kidding.

For an ecosystem where its been the 'norm' to slurp users entire address books[1], NOTHING about Apple's 'curated, controlled' approach protects users.

Please get real.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3563016

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5632934

3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3564830

4. http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/09/27/facebook-ios-6-phone...

View on HN

Not any longer. Users must explicitly approve app access to contacts the first time it's requested.

Yes, and what else we don't know about, thanks to their closed software?

Yes, Apple just told us your fingerprint will be stored locally. So? Does that mean Apple si telling the truth, or couldn't leave a backdoor for NSA to get the data? No it doesn't, and we wouldn't know if they did do that. That's the problem with closed software.

I'm not going to say that your fingerprints won't fall into the wrong hands, but it's incredibly simple to monitor network traffic from the device, and it's a guarantee someone will do this just to see.

It's also a guarantee that Apple knows this, so why bother lying?

>That's the problem with closed software.

That's also the problem with open software people get off of the internet/provider in binary form instead of compiling it themselves.

That is, all software.

For all practical concerns, downloading FOSS in binary form is not that worst compared to source code, unless you are willing to audit thousands of lines of code before compiling (and is competent enough). The exploit can even be hidden into the compiler itself, not in the source.

I don't have a solution for this problem, I'm just commenting the fact that it is more complex than "compile from source" and that you have to draw a line somewhere unless you assemble your hardware from raw materials and write your own software.

And that only took them until iOS 6! My point still stands.

This is really stretching the point, because it's implying that not only is a single breach proof of complete insecurity, but also that even a temporary breach is proof of complete insecurity.

If one is going to reason in black and white, then the only answer is that everything, absolutely everything, is susceptible to being compromised. In such a black and white world, there's no security benefit for open source software, because it is also possible that you could be tricked into running something that compromises your security, as it is also possible to have a design flaw in the architecture of open source code, as it is with closed source code.

It is only when one allows the concept of risk that a coherent security picture can emerge. Leave absolutes to mathematical proofs, and trust and risk assessments to the real world, at least until we can prove code correctness for an entire computer system.

> This is really stretching the point, because it's implying that not only is a single breach proof of complete insecurity, but also that even a temporary breach is proof of complete insecurity.

Not stretching the point at all, because this isn't the only case of a security or trust breach, and once that is broken, you have no reason to trust them again.

OP's post made the ridiculous claim that somehow Apple's 'controlled' approach protects users. I provided evidence which proved that false.

Totally stretching the point. Apple had to make stands as to where to trust developers and where not to trust them. Certain developers broke that trust with Apple, and Apple had to regain the trust with users.

Blame Path &c., not Apple, for abusing a feature that was originally provided for the convenience of developers and users together.

Not stretching any point. I presented actual cases and proved Apple's 'controlled' environment hasn't protected user privacy.

> Blame Path &c., not Apple

Oh sure, I won't blame Apple for leaving the door wide open and turning a blind eye for years! Wow.

> Not stretching the point at all, because this isn't the only case of a security or trust breach, and once that is broken, you have no reason to trust them again.

This is foolish. Every non-trivial piece of software will eventually succumb to a security flaw. This does not mean the software is untrustworthy in toto.

You fix the bug and move on.

No, your point does not stand. You shifted goalposts, like most posters here do when they are proven wrong. Just admit your ignorance and move on.

If you can get people to admit defeat without shame or guilt, they'll quite happily concede.

You may not have any interest in those restrictions on communication, but you'd have an easier time getting someone to admit their ignorance.

Admit what defeat? What an odd thing to say - as if posting on HN is some sort of battleground.

Anyway, for years apps have been collecting user data without interference.

My point still stands. Apple can't protect users on their own platform. Keep those blinders on, I guess.

Your point was

> NOTHING about Apple's 'curated, controlled' approach [that of having a closed source operating system] protects users

Definitely shifted goal posts.

Unrelated: you've said nothing to support this point anywhere throughout this thread.

> Unrelated: you've said nothing to support this point anywhere throughout this thread.

That's not true.

Everywhere people talk is a battleground, called "civil, reasoned debate." One of the rules of that battleground is that when someone pokes a hole in the evidence you've used to draw your audience toward a conclusion, you can't put new evidence in its place to support the same argument; you have to make an entirely new argument, because the new evidence might lead you somewhere entirely else when looked at on its own.

> you can't put new evidence in its place to support the same argument

Nah, no where did that happen. It's just hard for some people to handle truths and make connections.

The goal post here isn't about the address book API issue. It's about the fact that having a curated experience doesn't automatically imply better privacy.

The address book was an example of that.

It's not moving the goalposts. That was a single example of apple not protecting users, and the first post uses past tense when talking about it.

And when did Android fix it? Oh wait, they didn't did they?

Open source software freedom means the freedom to write software that slurps up whole address books.

And it's the user's responsibility to read the source code to ensure it's not doing that. Because obviously most people are capable to do that and also have the time to do that for every piece of software they install, right?

At the end of the day, I'd rather Apple and the NSA have my data than some random hacker in russia.

Sorry, but since 2.3 i can install cyanogen mod, which allows me to deny any permission an App asks for.

I'm running swype (a keyboard) without access to the network (it crashes if it tries to update) and it works just fine for its intended purpose.

And 2.3 is OLD!

oh, and no, google android and operator/major brand abused android sucks and should be left out of this discussion. Buying locked phones (and by locked i mean the boot loader being blocked) is the same as buying an iphone. sadly.

wtf is cyanogen mod? is it something a mere mortal would likely know about?

As much as a mere mortal know about installing a linux distro.

You don't understand what free software means. It means freedom respecting software; something that you control. Apple could still have audited free software into its appstore as it does for nonfree software currently.

Your comment is incoherent.

I know what "Free Software" means. Your definition has no connection to what you assert here: "Apple could still have audited free software into its appstore as it does for nonfree software currently."

So, unless you're suggesting that apps be distributed as source code, and compiled locally on your phone, there's no way to determine if the binary the App store distributes is an accurate uncompromised representation of the original source. Furthermore, expecting normal users to examine source code for security holes is an unreasonable burden. The security of iPhone apps is based on how much we trust Apple to maintain that security, and to review the apps. Not in our personal freedom to examine the source code, which we can do already, for many apps.

You confuse developer control/freedom with user control/freedom. They are very different things. A user doesn't have programming skills, and their personal interests are in freedom from malware- freedom from developers that have the ability to do whatever they feel like with the user's data. They have no interest in being able to compile their own apps and run them on their own hardware.

On the other hand, developers are interested in having the freedom of not being in a sandbox. not having to go through an app review/approval process. The freedom from security restrictions. The freedom to slurp address books. The freedom to override any hardware button, use any API, without limit.

Do you not see how developer freedom and user freedom are in conflict?

> So, unless you're suggesting that apps be distributed as source code, and compiled locally on your phone, there's no way to determine if the binary the App store distributes is an accurate uncompromised representation of the original source.

That's simply not true. If Apple opened its distribution process, and everything was cross compiled (which is already the case) none of what I quoted above would be true. This is nothing for or against free software, it is about correctness.

What exactly do you mean by "open its distribution process" ?

Let us know exactly what they do the binary, and at least give us public keys to verify signatures.

I'm just not sure how that would work, without Apple, or the Developer having the opportunity to introduce malicious code. Signature or not, known process or not, there's no way I can think of to compare a clean compile of source, to the binary that you get on the app store since Apple retains a private key that is used to molest the binary in some way.

You would have to mean something else by "open its distribution process"

Or just blindly trust that Apple knows what they're doing and that it has its customer's interests bound to its own commercial interests.

You compile it and do the same things to it Apple would have.

Right you just need Apple's private key. That should be easy, and not compromise the integrity of the whole system at all.

This is why I mentioned the public keys. You can do the parts of the process short of the signing, then go the other way from the published binary with the public keys.

Sheesh, does everyone on HN need everything spelled out for them?

You're assuming the signing process is reversible?

How does it still stand? Maybe the curated system doesn't protect users, but the only example you provided of it failing to do so has apparently been fixed.

Yes, after all what do hard data matter, when one has a point!

Hard data. Like the facts I pointed out earlier and backed them up with...data.

>For an ecosystem where its been the 'norm' to slurp users entire address books[1], NOTHING about Apple's 'curated, controlled' approach protects users.

Well, for one, that doesn't happen anymore without specific user approval.

Second, even with that hole, still SOMETHING protects the users more, hence the huge disparity in attacks and malware between the two platforms.

For example, what you described is your adress book data taken by the company whose app you use without your consent. That's bad, but not as bad as your whole data (and device) being taken by malicious software you never even intended on using.

Still better than Android requiring ridiculous, all-or-nothing, irrevocable permissions for every application.

Actually, 26% of Android apps have permission to slurp your contacts, including many that have no business doing so. Apple's current approach is much better at protecting your address book, because it makes apps ask permission at the moment they want access, not upfront when installing (which most users grant blindly).

This of course has little to do with curation -- except that curation helps too, in that malicious apps can be blocked. Apple's curated approach is why it literally has 1/100th the malicious attacks of Android. It chokes malware at the distribution point.

I noticed you had no response to that point.

Source: http://www.darkreading.com/privacy/more-than-25-of-android-a...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com