News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features by Nexxxeh on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @04:02AM (#13818994)
Nothing guarantees that. There have been RCE exploits on iOS.

One could argue that live patching allowed companies to fix or mitigate security problems faster than Apples (awful) app store policy (and timescale) would otherwise allow.

Re:Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features by nothrabannosir on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @04:07AM (#13819019)
Nothing guarantees nothing. Life is ephemeral and we're all going to die.

Yet, we can say that code review by a third party is better for trust of that code, than no code review by a third party.

"Nothing guarantees" may have been strong. but "the set of attack vectors and their relative efficacy increases " doesn't roll off the tongue quite as nicely.

Re:Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features by jclardy on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @07:40AM (#13819815)
Replace "code review" with automated static analysis and a 5 minute run through of the app and you are spot on.
Re:Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features by test1235 on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @04:29AM (#13819095)
> we're all going to die

That's guaranteed, at least ...

Re:Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features by glenneroo on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @06:48AM (#13819627)
Unless "The Singularity" (and subsequent mind-uploading) actually pans out.
Re:Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features by misnome on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @08:44AM (#13820148)
That only delays the inevitable.
Re:Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features by Ajedi32 on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @10:53AM (#13821037)
[Till the sun runs down][1]

[1]: http://multivax.com/last_question.html

Re:Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features by ballenf on Wednesday March 08, 2017 @11:12AM (#13821186)
A large number of apps will become abandoned apps at some point. And if one of those relies on code from a third party that has now turned malicious?

Your argument does sound good, but it's a double-edged sword.