• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Sandboxing. WTF?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Sandboxing. WTF?


  • Subject: Re: Sandboxing. WTF?
  • From: Mikkel Islay <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:17:28 +0200

On 29 May 2012, at 01:59, Graham Cox wrote:

> Nobody has written a better analysis, critique and alternative suggestion for sandboxing than Wil Shipley: http://blog.wilshipley.com/2011/11/real-security-in-mac-os-x-requires.html

An interesting post, but his arguments against sandboxing, I think.
Shipley argues from the pretense that App Sandboxing is a technology intended to shield the user form the intentions of the software developer. That is of course not the case. From the docs: "App Sandbox provides a last line of defense against stolen, corrupted, or deleted user data if malicious code exploits your app."
Of course App Sandboxing will have bugs, and no doubt someone might write an arbitrarily sophisticated malware app which could make it past the review, but is that an argument against sandboxing? It is intended to secure apps (and users) after deployment. Recently someone posted a link to a blogpost, describing manipulation of the ObjC-runtime to attack third-party apps on compromised iOS-devices. App sandboxing is meant to limit the effectiveness of that type of attack on OS X. Is that a important or credible type of attack on OS X? Shipley's arguments all but ignores that question.
The post makes a lot of the weaknesses of app curation, but they are besides the point.  The (relative) merits of sandboxing remain the same, irrespective of whether it functions in conjunction with the App Store or not. The argument that app curation is imperfect, doesn't impact the efficacy of sandboxing against attacks against apps.
Using MacDefender as an example of malware, sandboxing does not deal with, is a bit of a straw man argument. MacDefender was a phishing scam. App Sandboxing is not particularly effective against programs designed to fool users into taking actions which are against their best interest. It was not really designed to be.

Mikkel


_______________________________________________

Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)

Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com

Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Sandboxing. WTF?
      • From: Jayson Adams <email@hidden>
    • Re: Sandboxing. WTF?
      • From: Alex Zavatone <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Sandboxing. WTF? (From: Graham Cox <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Sandboxing. WTF? (From: Fritz Anderson <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Sandboxing. WTF? (From: Graham Cox <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Sandboxing. WTF? (From: Quincey Morris <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Sandboxing. WTF? (From: Graham Cox <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Sandboxing. WTF? (From: Quincey Morris <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Sandboxing. WTF? (From: Graham Cox <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Sandboxing. WTF? (From: Quincey Morris <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Sandboxing. WTF? (From: Mikkel Islay <email@hidden>)
 >RE: Sandboxing. WTF? (From: Shawn Bakhtiar <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Sandboxing. WTF? (From: Graham Cox <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: dragging from view based table view
  • Next by Date: Re: Sandboxing. WTF?
  • Previous by thread: Re: Sandboxing. WTF?
  • Next by thread: Re: Sandboxing. WTF?
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread