Re:About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store
by fiddlerwoaroof on Sunday November 08, 2020 @08:29PM
(#25030602)
Wouldn’t you have this as part of a defense in depth strategy? Apple’s public vs. private APIs and similar things seem to indicate that at least part of their security model involves static analysis of binaries and only allowing a set of approved APIs.
Re:About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store
by saagarjha on Monday November 09, 2020 @04:26AM
(#25032968)
Apple's static analysis to detect private API usage is not very clever; you can get around it with some fairly trivial tricks.
Re:About iSH’s pending removal from the App Store
by roblabla on Monday November 09, 2020 @04:53PM
(#25040414)
No, it's not a security mechanism period. Public/Private APIs aren't part of the security model, it's a way to prevent app breakage in their ecosystem due to applications using unstable APIs.
Please, no, this is not how security and sandboxing works at all. Otherwise, the moment you have an arbitrary code vulnerability, you'd get full access to everything.
The way effective sandboxing works is by giving a process a set of capabilities/permissions, what have you, that is enforced by the kernel. Those permissions can be "can I open files", "can I talk to the camera subsystem", etc. Then, even if you somehow manage to generate the right function call at runtime, the call will fail. And to be clear, this is how apple's own security works.