News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on About the security content of iOS 16.2 and iPadOS 16.2. Parent comment

Re:About the security content of iOS 16.2 and iPadOS 16.2 by haswell on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @06:49PM (#33977996)
I think “improved” also subtly implies that there was something in the code to do A, A has been improved so it no longer breaks in a specific way, and A could still be vulnerable to other unrelated attacks.

The thing I just improved is subject to future improvement. Subtly different than saying “fixed the input validation routine”, which implies some finality, or overcommitment.

Some still might interpret that as Apple using CYA language or a lack of admission, but to me it seems like a fairly pragmatic statement of what seems like reality.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:About the security content of iOS 16.2 and iPadOS 16.2 by nequo on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @07:17PM (#33978256)
It seems to me that "improved" carries the same type of uncertainty as "fixed" would. If the "improvement" didn't actually fix the security issue, then was it really an improvement?

(To be clear, it may have been, but we don't know without actually seeing what change they made to the code.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:About the security content of iOS 16.2 and iPadOS 16.2 by AdamN on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @05:20AM (#33981828)
In large organization, you'll see people move to verbiage like 'improved' because it's true without the implication that 'fixed' has which directly implies that the previous implementation was 'broken'. I am with Apple on this, they 'improved' the software.
[ Parent | on HN ]