macOS has checked app signatures online for over 2 years • Hacker News Board

Re: macOS has checked app signatures online for over 2 years

#161

Post by bogwog » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:52 PM UTC

user-the-name wrote: post #123

bogwog wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say you're one out of 10,000 users in a large network sharing a single public IP address. Anyone trying to identify you just needs to narrow that down from 10,000 to one. This can be done many different ways by combining data sources. You could automate it with algorithms and maybe some machine learning, but it'd also be pretty trivial for a dedicated human to do it. Browser fingerprint, mac address, software v…

But why? Why go to these ridiculous lengths to try to extract information from an unreliable source? Apple already has the device identifier and Apple ID. These are reliable. They do not need combining different data sources and algorithm and machine learning. They are the accurate data already. If they wanted it, they could just send it. They don't. Why not? If they wanted this information, why on god's green earth…

I didn't mention Apple. Anyone intercepting the OCSP traffic (which isn't encrypted) could use it to track you.

Re: macOS has checked app signatures online for over 2 years

#162

Post by api » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

nullc wrote: post #2

A common refrain in arguments that we don't need laws to protect privacy is that the market will take care of it. The market can't act against what it can't see. Privacy loss is often irreversible. A common refrain in arguments that we don't need to reject closed source software to protect privacy is that being closed source doesn't hide the behaviour, and people will still notice backdoors and privacy leaks. Sometim…

> The market can't act against what it can't see. Privacy loss is often irreversible.

I would add that the market can't act to prevent risks that are outside the market and not taken into account by the market.

The big risks from widespread privacy loss are the exploitation of private data by criminals, foreign unconventional warfare by terrorists or hostile states, and the rise of a totalitarian government here in the USA.

Criminal action can to some extent be priced into a market, but the other two really can't be.

Re: macOS has checked app signatures online for over 2 years

#163

Post by ardy42 » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

simias wrote: post #9

nullc wrote: post #2

A common refrain in arguments that we don't need laws to protect privacy is that the market will take care of it. The market can't act against what it can't see. Privacy loss is often irreversible. A common refrain in arguments that we don't need to reject closed source software to protect privacy is that being closed source doesn't hide the behaviour, and people will still notice backdoors and privacy leaks. Sometim…

> The market can't act against what it can't see. Privacy loss is often irreversible. You're not wrong, but on the other hand has "the market" shown any serious signal that it cares about privacy? From what I can see people seem more than glad to trade privacy and personal information for free services and cheaper hardware. Take Samsung putting ads on their "smart" TV's UI and screenshotting what people are watching…

> You're not wrong, but on the other hand has "the market" shown any serious signal that it cares about privacy? From what I can see people seem more than glad to trade privacy and personal information for free services and cheaper hardware. Take Samsung putting ads on their "smart" TV's UI and screenshotting what people are watching for profiling, that's been known for a while now. The market seems fine with it.

I'd guess that most of that's due to information asymmetry. Privacy losses aren't advertised(and often hidden) and are more difficult to understand, but price is and is understood by everyone.

Take that Samsung example: it's not like they had a bullet point on the feature list saying "Our Smart TVs will let us spy one what you're watching, so we can monetize that information."

Re: macOS has checked app signatures online for over 2 years

#164

Post by blub » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

thinkingemote wrote: post #88

xalava wrote: post #25

Interesting, but reading the conclusion I'm fascinated in this affaire how technically knowledgeable people loose common sense to defend their favorite brand: - Per launch verification is terrible for privacy, vis-a-vis Apple and the whole network when it happens in plain text - "They should also explain how, having enjoyed their benefits for a couple of years, they’ve suddenly decided they were such a bad idea after…

No-Logo by Naomi Klein outlined how brands work. One factor in the irrational defence could be a kind of psychological protection of investment. Apple isnt just another company, its an entire lifestyle ecosystem. Those invested in Apple have the watch, tv, laptop, itunes etc. And together they really do "just work" - the user experience is great! So to admit that Apple is flawed, that their investment was a bad idea…

But they're not wrong at all and their time and money was well invested.

The ecosystem does just work and the user experience is great compared to the alternatives. It's also possible to use only specific products and switch off various cloud or telemetry options. There's still a long way to go to reach a private OS, but Apple has by far the best privacy stance when compared to Google or Microsoft and there is nobody who offers such an OS right now. The best one can hope for is build their own Linux-based distro or use BSD and then one has to be prepared to invest a significant amount of time.

Apple didn't get challenged through the GDPR yet because everyone's busy with Google and Facebook still. But, if you or anyone else would like to lodge a complaint, maybe this will be decided for the customers (I think it's borderline) and we'll get an option to switch it off.

Re: macOS has checked app signatures online for over 2 years

#165

Post by acdha » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

ben509 wrote: post #117

> What has been puzzling me ever since is that these OCSP checks have been well-known for a couple of years, and only now have attracted attention. It's not much of a puzzle. Everyone's Mac essentially froze simultaneously, and that's what drew all the initial attention. Then people were digging into why, and the cause of it got a lot of play. Privacy advocates took the opportunity to advocate privacy and had a large…

Don’t forget to account for selection bias: some people had apps delay launching and they started telling everyone about it as if it was everyone which affected all apps and users. Most of us had no idea there was a problem and thus didn’t feel obligated to start talking about it on social media.

Re: macOS has checked app signatures online for over 2 years

#166

Post by ascagnel_ » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:55 PM UTC

dilap wrote: post #102

DavideNL wrote: post #46

> "Those who consider that Apple’s current online certificate checks are unnecessary, invasive or controlling should familiarise themselves with how they have come about, and their importance to macOS security. They should also explain how, having enjoyed their benefits for a couple of years, they’ve suddenly decided they were such a bad idea after all, and what should replace them." A simple opt-out toggle, for priv…

Apple has said they plan to do this, and also encrypt the checking payload. Sounds good to me, though definitely a privacy failure that they didn't do this in the first place. The other thing I'd like to see is the app open immediately, w/ the check happening asynchronously in the background. (This seems like super-basic good engineering to me.) No idea if they're planning to fix that or not.

> The other thing I'd like to see is the app open immediately, w/ the check happening asynchronously in the background. (This seems like super-basic good engineering to me.) No idea if they're planning to fix that or not.

How would this work? The point of the check is to block malware from running, and opening without the check would, by definition, negate the entire system. If malware authors get wise to the async scheme, they can write programs that deliver their payload in the opening milliseconds of an app’s execution, while the network call is running (even the fastest pings would leave 1 or 2 ms worth of window).

Re: macOS has checked app signatures online for over 2 years

#167

Post by blub » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

mhh__ wrote: post #68

xalava wrote: post #25

Interesting, but reading the conclusion I'm fascinated in this affaire how technically knowledgeable people loose common sense to defend their favorite brand: - Per launch verification is terrible for privacy, vis-a-vis Apple and the whole network when it happens in plain text - "They should also explain how, having enjoyed their benefits for a couple of years, they’ve suddenly decided they were such a bad idea after…

I think there's an element of people desperately wanting to believe that apple is their tribe, rather than just another company. I can believe Apple do care about privacy, but ultimately they're just another company. For example, I'm sure apple would love the Epic lawsuit to be decided based on a poll of HN users - "I would rather not have the freedom to run whatever I want, because [insert bizarre anecdote]". Don't…

Could the people that vote with their wallet please also stop caring about Apple so much, to the extent that they have to rescue those that are still Apple customers and nitpick anything Apple-related to bits? Take a clean break, it's healthier that way.

Re: macOS has checked app signatures online for over 2 years

#168

Post by bcrosby95 » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

oarsinsync wrote: post #93

_puk wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, it does occur to me just how many kindles I see with ads. Is there any data released on ads Vs no ads versions? That's the closest comparator I can think of.

> Whilst I agree with the sentiment, it does occur to me just how many kindles I see with ads. > Is there any data released on ads Vs no ads versions? Do they offer a tracking vs no tracking option too? The absence of adverts does not mean the absence of tracking.

For the non-tablet Kindle, I'm not sure if the differentiation between tracking and ads makes a lot of sense. You (well, I at least) already use Amazon to buy the books that are on my Kindle. I guess they could track how fast I read them. But that seems trivial compared to already knowing what I'm reading.

Re: macOS has checked app signatures online for over 2 years

#169

Post by zepto » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:57 PM UTC

darksaints wrote: post #143

zepto wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, this claim about Apple’s intent isn’t made with a shred of evidence.

Oh, you mean the article up at the top of the fucking page? Yeah, I didn't think it was necessary.

That article contains no evidence that Apple has a hidden agenda.

Re: macOS has checked app signatures online for over 2 years

#170

Post by shadowfiend » Wed, Nov 25, 2020, 3:58 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #126

nickpp wrote: post #47

I sometimes wonder if the mods won't end up banning "political" talk on HN. Because these days everything becomes political, even if it really is a technical issue. Case to the point: online signature check was a technical decision, to fight malware. It was implemented similarly by other OS vendors (Microsoft) and it's been this way for years. Now we discover that it has the unfortunate side-effect that it lessens pr…

> Case to the point: online signature check was a technical decision, to fight malware. This is an oversimplification. It also helps protect Apple's business model: you must pay Apple a fee for services (and show ID) to be able to sign your apps for distribution on this platform. Imagine if you had to show ID to get a TLS certificate for your website. Don't conflate the issue - this is also a move to protect certain…

I see you asserting this over and over.

What I don't see is you providing any real evidence that this is a core part of the decision-making process.

Apple isn't particularly incentivized to find a different way that avoids the tools they already have that already make it harder and costlier for parties to get around their security mechanisms. That is not the same as making decisions because they protect the business model.

Which is to say, it appears that you're the one oversimplifying and conflating (btw, I do not think that word means what you think it means) some very different motivations.