News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Apple approves previously rejected HKMap.live app by _bxg1 on Friday October 04, 2019 @05:00PM (#21161837)
No but what I'm saying is, given other exploits, this could be one additional hurdle for attackers. I.e. right now, if they figured out how to bypass the prompt, I believe (?) they still couldn't install a binary that isn't signed by Apple.
Re:Apple approves previously rejected HKMap.live app by simion314 on Friday October 04, 2019 @05:22PM (#21162029)
Apple developers are smart enough to sandbox a browser and have the installer processes secured enough, there are so many ways to do it.
Re:Apple approves previously rejected HKMap.live app by _bxg1 on Friday October 04, 2019 @05:28PM (#21162066)
The point is that every layer helps. It's bad security practice to build a single layer of defense and call it a day. People always find a way through.
Re:Apple approves previously rejected HKMap.live app by simion314 on Friday October 04, 2019 @05:32PM (#21162092)
Who said only 1 layer ?

You sandbox the browser

you put the installer on a different user

you make the installer always open a popup

you ask for the password/pin

If a JS script can bypass all of this then you have a bigger problem, the malware developers can easily already have a dummpy app already in the app-store that is signed by Apple, the installer signature is the last thing you should worry about in this case (better disable JS now)

Re:Apple approves previously rejected HKMap.live app by Defenestresque on Friday October 04, 2019 @11:38PM (#21163666)
You are correct that the walled garden contributes to security by creating "another hurdle" for attackers to overcome.

Nobody is arguing that Apple's approach isn't more secure; they are arguing that the tradeoff (an additional layer of security vs. the right to install the software of your choice in a computing device you paid for) is not worth.

There are countless examples of this. Requiring everyone to strip completely naked to get on an airplane would absolutely act as an additional hurdle for a person with nefarious intent, but we don't do that because we acknowledge that there must be a fundamental tradeoff between our safety and our freedoms.