Apple has had more simple "unbelievable" bugs, e.g

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15800676 (Anyone can login as root without any technical effort required)

And to top it off (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15828767)

Apple keeps having all sorts of very simple "unbelievable" bugs.

You can't forget the infamous "goto fail": https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html

There seems to be kind of a common theme to these:

- SSL certificates not validated at all

- root authentication not validated at all

- JWT token creation for arbitrary Apple ID users not validated at all

I think these are all very likely due to error and not malice, but it's pretty crazy how these gaping holes keep being found.

More recent example of Apple "undoing" patches: https://www.synacktiv.com/posts/exploit/return-of-the-ios-sa...

Last year (or maybe 2018?) my employer hired an external consultant to give engineers security trainings (all are optional, they provide a few sessions on different topics, and engineers can sign up for interested ones). In one of the sessions I signed up, during the pre-session chat (while waiting for everyone signed up show up in the conference room), the external trainer "casually" chatted about "if you have an Android phone, you should throw it out of the window right now and buy an iPhone instead". That's the point I lost all my respect to them.

(The session itself was ok-ish. It was some trainings about xsrf, nothing special either)

(That incident also triggered me to purchase a sheet of [citation needed] stickers from xkcd to put on my laptop, so the next time this kind of thing happens I can just point to the sticker on my laptop. But I didn't got a chance to do that yet since received the stickers)

This was pretty true not long ago. It's still a notoriously short window for OEM software patches on Android, whereas Apple's first 64-bit phone, the 5s from Fall 2013 is still getting patches (May 20th was the last one, iOS 12.4.7)

Apple pioneered usable security with TouchID and the secure enclave; a lot of Android fingerprint readers were gimmicks for years, same with the face unlocks. https://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/1000/MA1902/en_US/app...

They also invest piles of money into privacy https://apple.com/privacy (1 minute overview), https://apple.com/privacy/features (in-depth with links to whitepapers).

I imagine that's where your teacher was coming from.

Yes I'm not gonna defend Google's privacy issues, but privacy is totally different from security. People tend to confuse them. I understand it if it's average Joe got confused. But if you are a "security consultant" and you still have no idea what's the difference between them, then that's a big problem.

Regarding security, see examples like https://qz.com/1844937/hong-kongs-mass-arrests-give-police-a...

For privacy, I guess you can have full confident that Apple has the intention to keep your data private. But do you have full confident that Apple has the competence to fulfill that intention?

Google doesn't have the intention to keep all your data private, sure. They are an ads company after all. But for things they want to protect, in most cases they are competent enough to protect them.

(Disclaimer: I also worked for Google, but the "employer" I mentioned in my original comment was not Google)

Fortunately, it seems google has separated security updates from the OEM updates on some newer phones it seems. The phone I bought In November 2018, right now is receiving monthly security updates via Play Services updates, and is right now on the May version for some time.

> The phone I bought In November 2018

I think it’s too early to claim anything for that one.

It’s none of my concern what camp people fall into... but...

I hired a very high level pen test company, they mandated iPhones for their company work. They were the best infosec company we’ve ever hired. Sample of one.

I wouldn’t suggest iPhones are more safe than Android, but i also wouldn’t suggest in any way they are less safe overall.

Apple has really lost their touch, software quality has declined dramatically

Anecdotally, I upgraded my wife's iMac to Catalina and she's experiencing issues (rendering latency) she's never had before (hadn't upgraded the OS since buying it 4 years ago). I figured is was good to get on the latest and greatest for security reasons, now she wont let me touch her computer anymore.

I used to be on the latest and security camp as well. But after all these years I am starting to understand why people dont update.

It is extremely frustrating. Especially when Catalina removes features that were working perfectly.

I’m still on High Sierra, most recent 10.13.6 security update was ~3 days ago.

I’ll upgrade when some piece of software I need to use requires it.

As an Apple user for decades, have to say that High Sierra seemed to be one of their better recent releases.

I have an iMac that uses it and a Mac Mini that is on Mojave and for some reason, High Sierra just feels more stable with some software.

Firefox runs fine on High Sierra and has crashed multiple times in the past few weeks after using it on Mojave.

Maybe I'm just biased having used High Sierra for so long and dreading Catalina lol.

I went to Mojave and that went without trouble except I lost the ability to use my external GPU, but I knew that.

Mojave removed Facebook, Twitter, Vimeo, and Flickr, integrations, none of which I use, so that would be good.

But I’m not aware of any new feature in Mojave I want or need, so the 2013 MacBook Pro Retina I’m using will stay on High Sierra for today :)

FWIW, they added the ability for these companies to control their own integrations by publishing iOS and Mac apps.

It's just that so far, only Twitter has bothered to do so on Mac. Even software like Slack which does so for iOS just hasn't bothered to port that code to their Mac app - most likely because of the Mac app using a different Electron-based codebase.

I'm about this close to making an e-petition demanding Snow Leopard FOSS for posterity, now that they have successfully milked us all multiple times. My 2011 hardware works just fine, and 'obsolete' is meaningless in a world where IRC was replaced by Slack and where Visual Basic tutorial fodder from 1998 become MVP web products...

Welcome to the late adopter group. Never upgrade, unless it is absolutely necessary.

does it really matter though?

Someone with an AV production studio totalling over $100k in Apple products and a few million in outboard gear whose drivers worked fine before may just care a bit...

The whole pro-multimedia production crowd probably cares...

(vs the current Apple paramour: the multimedia consumer who wants to order pizza and get back to netflix on their phablet or whatever..)

I'm not sure if Apple ever had quality.

They are the Nintendo of Computing. They have some novelties, but in general they are average at their best. Notice that both Nintendo and Apple are big advertisers.

It is more fashion than technology. Like ordinary clothes from famous brands. Expensive, praised yet nothing special.

My guess is that it has to do with that private relay because OAuth isn't too complex by itself. During the OAuth flow they probably collect the user preference, (if needed) go out to the relay service and get a generated email, and POST back to their own service with the preferred email to use in the token.

If that's it, it's about as bad as doing password authentication in JavaScript and passing authenticated=true as a request parameter.

Edit: Looking at the OAuth picture in the article, my guess would be like adding a step in between 1 and 2 where the server says "what email address do you want here" and the (client on the) user side is responsible for interacting with the email relay service and posting back with a preferred email address. Or the server does it but POSTS back to the same endpoint which means the user could just include whatever they want right from the start.

The only thing that makes me think I might not be right is that doing it like that is just way too dumb.

AND I'm guessing a bunch of Apple services probably use OAuth amongst themselves, so this might be the worst authentication bug of the decade. The $100k is a nice payday for the researcher, but I bet the scope of the damage that could have been done was MASSIVE.

Edit 2: I still don't understand why the token wouldn't mainly be linked to a subject that's a user id. Isn't 'sub' the main identifier in a JWT? Maybe it's just been too long and I don't remember right.

> Edit 2: I still don't understand why the token wouldn't mainly be linked to a subject that's a user id. Isn't 'sub' the main identifier in a JWT? Maybe it's just been too long and I don't remember right.

The details are very sparse in the post, but I believe the "sub" claim is a unique and stable value for the user against a particular relying party (based on that being a requirement in OpenID Connect.)

You _should_ be relying on sub rather than email address, which is not guaranteed to be sent every time, to stay stable, or be unique across accounts.

So while this was a zero day in terms of providing arbitrary email addresses as verified addresses, it may have not led to any account compromises.

The only thing I can think of is some 'test mode' override which inadvertently got enabled in production.

1. Don't add these.

2. If you must add something, structure it so it can only exist in test-only binaries.

3. If you really really need to add a 'must not enable in prod' flag then you must also continuously monitor prod to ensure that it is not enabled.

Really hoping they follow up with a root-cause explanation.

Apple? No way.

I found a customer data leak on their homepage.

Took about two years to fix. Gave me credit. No money.

I'm not surprised here.

They exploited you just like their customers, from whom they take money for overpriced lock-in products.

This is basically bad coding, I never used OAuth system but you are supposed to just validate token, not any additional incoming data as number one rule of distributed systems is “never trust the client”.

They basically made a huge fundamental design mistake.

> code review and testing.

Sometime code review is just "Please change the name of this function" and testing is just testing the positive cases not the negative ones. Yes, even in companies like apple and google.