Maybe not -- maybe you know something about how Apple operates. But clearly they ARE sending responses threatening to do exactly that.
Anecdotally, I have never heard of this happening in non-malicious cases, ever. And I know a couple hundred Mac and iOS developers who would raise a lot of noise if this did happen, so I'm inclined to believe that it doesn't.
There is a good reason for how Apple approaches use of their private APIs, and for how Microsoft approaches use of their private APIs. Not saying either one is correct, there really is no answer, but consider that for any public API that exists, there may be undocumented details that some software somewhere relies upon whether they realise it or not. Apple is just taking a more aggressive approach than Microsoft here by detecting and disallowing private API use in their store so as to avoid issues down the line.
[1] https://tedwvc.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/finding-the-kernel32...
They don't, though. And we trust them not to, because it is not reasonable behaviour and it would absolutely not make sense for them to do this.
This is the same.
If you're sending me code to run on my computer—especially if I'm paying for it—you either need to have glanced at the code yourself or have some reason to trust what's in there (it's from a company you have a business relationship with, it's a major library from a known author that other apps on the store are also using, etc.). Otherwise you're being irresponsible. If you don't have the time to look at the library, don't use it.
You can fully expect that less then 1% of the apps in any app store has a transitive dependency chain that is fully known and understood by the author to any meaningful extent.
Most of that code is however understood by someone, although not necessarily the app developer. The sandboxing and app permission dialogue boxes are unfortunately a critical part of the defense against malicious code, although not a perfect one by any stretch of the imagination.
So, can you expand on why you think one should never run Linux?
* (any source available OS)
The point is, at some point you stop digging
That is a highly inaccurate paraphrase of what I said. You can tell it's inaccurate because I'm specifically suggesting that end users should be able to trust apps on the App Store without auditing the apps ourselves, as long as we trust the app authors, and that app authors should bear responsibility for what they redistribute.
Excuse me, are you, the developer, telling me, a user, that you don't know what you're giving me to run on my computer?
I just looked at the node_modules folder for a project that runs user configured code when your imap server gets a new mail via imap idle. It's called imapnotify and inside its node_modules dir I see it pulls in 549 js files.
The majority are under 100 lines per file dozens are between 1 and 30.
Cutting just the last segment so that /foo/bar/baz.js and /bam/baz.js both appear as baz.js and removing dupes reduced the number of unique filenames to 383.
Basically every js dev is either telling you or not telling you that they don't know what they are giving you to run on your computer.
That sort of thing is a big red flag that perhaps you should reconsider using that package.
But even if you do use it, that in no way reduces the fact that it's your responsibility to know what you're shipping.
If you can't find an acceptable package, then I'd absolutely recommend writing that functionality yourself. connecting to an IMAP server and responding to events aren't complicated tasks, after all.
If devs can't do things like be able to tell what dependencies a module/library has, then they shouldn't use that module/library.
* you can't be sure code in package is same you see on github as npm doesn't do signatures
* code already in node_modules is usually minified and obfuscated
So only real way to be sure is to make own repository, copy every dependency, check code, build own packages and only use packages from your repo. Repeat process when versions are updated.
So to answer your question, yes, 99% of apps, they don't know.
Unless you are willing to freeze whole tree until review is done but then you don't get bug fixes and security updates for period of initial review + review of updated packages.
This will be borderline impossible for a nodejs developer, but a perfectly realistic expectation for e.g. a Django project.
Everywhere I’ve ever worked, adopting a dependent library was a HUGE DEAL. You don’t do it lightly. You have to know what’s in it, know what it calls, know what the license is, understand the increased security attack surface, measure how much bigger it makes your binary, measure any performance deltas, and so on. In bigger companies, you need to get all sorts of approvals... Who the heck are these companies where you just hook up the git submodule and wing it?
Since most applications nowadays are server side, you would usually already pull 1 GB+ of Docker layers, before you even add application + libraries.
Facebook on iOS seems to be around 400 MB of size (first result from quick googling, might be wrong), and average Electron app is 120 MB+, so I don't think the size is a huge concern.
On the developer side there's more though, you should know what their release cycles are like, how they manage compatibility, how long they support older releases etc. You don't what your app stuck in a 3 month upgrade cycle just because a transitive dependency needed an update.
There's a reason dependencies are there own form of technical debt and need to be minimized.
Having knowledge of every dependency explicitly linked into your application is a basic tenet of software development that literally every software professional would endorse as a necessary best practice, but it's not what we're talking about here. I am 100% certain that every developer with a commercial Electron app is aware that they are relying on Electron as a dependency and Github as a trustworthy software vendor.
I think you're conflating platforms and dependencies. The OS it runs on is a platform that the the user already trusts, left-pad is a dependency the developers are responsible for. There's some grey area like electron or the JVM but even there electron sticks out as a huge binary blob the user isn't explicitly asked to install.
You know all of the transitive dependencies in the application stack of your company? Out of curiosity, what is the ballpark figure on the total number of transitive dependencies in your application?
I'm a few years out of the Java world these days, but you've vetted every line in every one of those Apache commons projects that gets pulled in? Because that's a lot of reading...
Over 10 years ago I went through every single Java RSS parsing library and all their forks (I think there were 5) to fix Xml eXternal Entity (XXE) attacks (eg[1]) and submitted fixes for them all.
That was a huge amount of work, because they all used random version of different XML parsers, all of which required external entity processing to be turned off in different ways.
None of the authors of the packages were aware of the issue, and as far I could determine at the time I was the only person in the entire Java ecosystem who knew all the different parsers arguments.
This was a critical, remotely exploitable vulnerability. I'd never claim to know about it now, and it was only for a few weeks back in 2006 that I really knew it then.
So when you say you "know" all the dependencies in your stack, what do you mean exactly?
So, the process would be something like: have a problem that a library might solve, find a library that could solve the problem, verify it can solve the problem, look through the implementation, look through it's dependencies, then actually include it in the build. If anything doesn't look nice at each step, rollback and find something else or start writing your own implementation.
Do this from beginning of the project and you'll always have a full understanding of the system.
I will never in a million year ship anything on, for instance, node.js, for exactly this reason.
As a developer, I'm honestly and utterly stunned to see other developers arguing otherwise.
I don’t develop for iOS so I’m genuinely curious. Do they provide automated tools for developers to use? Or a flag that fails your build if you’re trying to call private APIs: For that matter, how are the reviewers catching these API usages?
I find it strange that a private API can be used accidentally, without something notifying the developer before they’ve gotten to the stage of submitting their app.
It's difficult to use private API accidentally. However, it is possible to use a dependency that purposefully uses private API, which is what happened here.
> Do they provide automated tools for developers to use?
No.
> Or a flag that fails your build if you’re trying to call private APIs
Kinda, but that doesn't help you if your dependency is trying really hard to use that API and has been precompiled.
> For that matter, how are the reviewers catching these API usages?
They're running somewhat stupid static analysis and possibly some dynamic analysis? They don't tell you what they do but they're not very good at it and don't generally catch even basic obfuscation. However, if a human finds your private API usage and you look like you're trying to obfuscate it, they won't be nearly as lenient.
You may not have time to do your job properly?
If you're using libraries in your project, it's normal and expected that you know what those libraries are doing and what those libraries depend on. You should know this stuff regardless of what Apple (or anyone else) may require.
Are you sure that your machine code gets run properly? Do you test the CPU hardware and all the logical gates and whatnot so that they respond to the schemes and it passes the electric current properly?
Like xkcd 378, we could follow this logic quite deep. At some point you just have to trust, or at least assume that something is going to work, without properly verifying it yourself.
Smarter people than me have essentially dedicated their life to some extremely specific area of computing. It's not reasonable to assume that I could and should deep-dive into every possible nook and cranny just in order to build an application. I already have to do a whole lot of assumptions because of my hardware used for development, my OS and software tools like my IDE, task runners and yes, external libraries.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you should.
If it's in my product, I'm responsible for it, so it needs to be possible for me to audit it, even if I may not be looking too closely.
This is missing the point of the post you are replying to. Say you identify five closed API dependencies and remove them. Do you resubmit? If you missed any others, you and all your apps might be banned.