Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 593 posts

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#101

Post by ascagnel_ »

MBCook wrote: post #14

I’m going to ignore the security angle and post my big fear. Chrome has dominance similar to IE at the height of its popularity. Whatever you think of their decisions, Apple is the only thing stopping a 90%+ Chrome web. (Note: not why they’re doing it, just a side effect) People keep arguing Apple is being anti-competitive. But no one seems to recon with the possible consequences of what they’re asking for. And I fea…

It reminds me of what Apple did with iBooks: they weren't trying to do the right thing, they did it the wrong way, but if they had been successful, it would have been better for the market as a whole. The DoJ correctly went after Apple and eventually won, but they also should have looked at Amazon for using what were basically dumping-level prices to secure the market for themselves.

Apple is in the wrong to tie Safari to iOS and block the installation of other browsers. They're wrong to do it for the sake of keeping control of the OS. They're right to do it, because that's the only thing that's keeping Chrome from a near-monopoly of the browser space.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#102

Post by [deleted] »

nemothekid wrote: post #56
bad_good_guy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you are happy to have Apple provide no user choice, because you fear a future where there is no user choice?

No; my problem is when people are using the "open web" as a bludgeon to get Apple to allow Chrome on iOS. If you want Chrome on iOS, just say that. To pretend that there is open future of browser diversity once Chrome is allowed on iOS is underhanded.

[deleted]

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#103

Post by babypuncher »

adrr wrote: post #86
bogwog wrote: post #29

IIRC, every video game console that ships with webkit has been jailbroken due to vulnerabilities in webkit. Off the top of my head at least, I know the following have been exploited that way: * PS4 * PS Vita * 3DS/New 3DS * Wii U * Wii Also maybe PS3/PSP and likely also PS5 will get the webkit exploit treatment at some point.

If you can break out the app sandbox on IOS, that is a flaw with IOS. These flaws could be exploited with any app that is using file parsing like the adobe photoshop app. The jailbreakme app wasn’t exploit on WebKit. It was iOS native pdf rendering Library. WebKit was used to deliver the exploit.

That is not a fair comparison. An entire browser engine has way more surface area for attack than a JPEG decoder.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#104

Post by mtomweb »

_kbh_ wrote: post #58
mtomweb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP here. The point of the post was not that Safari's security is bad (browser security in general is pretty excellent), the point is that Apple uses security as an excuse to block competition and has no evidence that it's browser is more secure than Firefox/Chrome/Edge etc. As for system block lists and screentime whitelist controls, that sounds like something any browser could plug-in to via a OS provided API. I'm i…

Should browsers that ship to iOS have to raise their security profile to be the same as safari in your scenarios?.(afaik no browsers have the same exploit mitigations that safari does on M1/iOS because nothing else has the hardware to support these mitigations).

IMO, Only browsers with dedicated security teams should receive a browser entitlement (which includes a small team for soft-fork browsers) who are committed to keeping their browser secure.

All browsers have vulnerabilities, and it's hard to measure. Although it's easy to spot browsers that aren't patching known vulnerabilities fast enough. Negligent browsers should be warned and then have their entitlements revoked.

As for hardware protections like APRR or Pointer Authentication Codes (PAC) Apple should be forced to provide access to the third party browsers. I would steer clear of mandating exactly how the browsers should keep their users secure because that can be a point of debate and can be done both at a software layer or a hardware layer. Firefox has also introduced Site Isolation, Chromium has proven that adequately staffed security teams are able to mitigate hardware level security issues like Spectre & Meltdown with novel, system-level mitigations and these mitigations reached users before OS and hardware updates were able to fully remove the vulnerabilities.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#105

Post by corrral »

UIUC_06 wrote: post #75

I'm actually writing this on Brave on MacOS. I also have Chrome. I practically never use Safari. (I don't have an iPhone, though.) So they don't have it on the AppStore? Who cares?

On iOS, the only browser engine allowed is Safari's. There are other browsers, but they have to use the same engine.

I'm pretty sure that approximately zero normal users are bothered by this, but a lot of webdevs really, really want to be able to use things like web push messaging on iOS.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#106

Post by escape_goat »

lucasyvas wrote: post #69
MBCook wrote: post #14

I’m going to ignore the security angle and post my big fear. Chrome has dominance similar to IE at the height of its popularity. Whatever you think of their decisions, Apple is the only thing stopping a 90%+ Chrome web. (Note: not why they’re doing it, just a side effect) People keep arguing Apple is being anti-competitive. But no one seems to recon with the possible consequences of what they’re asking for. And I fea…

It's not Apple's choice to make on whether or not Chrome becomes a browser monopoly - fighting anti-competitiveness with anti-competitiveness is not a solution. The chips will fall as they will and we will all be left to deal with the aftermath. That's the way it has to be.

Libertarianism as an absolutist ideology that proscribes courses of action for moral reasons and literally requires helplessness and passivity from everyone is not, I believe, the original flavor.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#107

Post by JCWasmx86 »

mtomweb wrote: post #93
jacooper wrote: post #77

Apple claiming security as a reason for monopoly, how classic. The EU's digital markets act bans the only Safari lock on IOS, so this is gone whether apple likes it or not. (1 - sorry couldn't find a better source) Safari is the new IE, there is a difference between a monopoly while still being able to use a competing product (like chrome in other platfroms), and forcing Safari(WebKit) while hindering the web because…

Source was the DMA final text: https://twitter.com/OpenWebAdvocacy/status/15271019882567229... Also many have now spoken up against it: ### Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) Apple’s restrictions on third-party browsers, and the limitations it puts on Safari/WebKit (its own browser tools) have hobbled “web apps,” which run seamlessly inside a browser. This means that app makers can’t deliver a single, browser-based…

> proprietary WebKit

That is not true. WebKit is opensource, there are other browsers that use it (GNOME Web), it is used in a lot of other applications, like GNOME Builder, Devhelp.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#108

Post by MBCook »

Joeri wrote: post #87
lucasyvas wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not Apple's choice to make on whether or not Chrome becomes a browser monopoly - fighting anti-competitiveness with anti-competitiveness is not a solution. The chips will fall as they will and we will all be left to deal with the aftermath. That's the way it has to be.

But letting the chips fall where they may is what led to the current situation, with a browser market heavily distorted and made anti-competitive by two tech giants. What people are asking for is a regulator that steps in and redresses the imbalances so a healthy browser market can arise. If the regulator does not step in they are choosing the status quo which by itself also is a deliberate choice. Inaction is always…

> What people are asking for is a regulator that steps in and redresses the imbalances so a healthy browser market can arise.

That’s not what I see. I see people constantly calling for the ability to run other browsers (really Chrome) on iOS.

I almost never see people trying to get Google’s massive browser share reduced.

If you do one without the other I expect disaster.

That was the point of my comment. I want the “open web” people (in general, not just this org) to call for BOTH. But I don’t see that.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#109

Post by [deleted] »

lucasyvas wrote: post #95
MBCook wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The chips will fall as they will and we will all be left to deal with the aftermath The aftermath could be the complete death of the open web. Unwinding that may be nearly impossible. There needs to be a plan in place before Pandora’s box is opened.

The death of the open web as we currently know it could lead to an even better successor over time though. We just can't know if the current hill is worth dying on - it may be for future generations to solve. Short term, it's decidedly not good, but long term? How can we know? If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is an inevitability, maybe it deserves to die and be replaced by something else.

[deleted]

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#110

Post by joshuamorton »

JCWasmx86 wrote: post #96
mtomweb wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP here. That's actually incorrect. We started OWA with a group of primarily Safari first developers, in that iOS Safari is our primary target platform. We've had over a decade of major issues from rendering bugs, to lack of functionality to our apps breaking for months at a time waiting for a patch. The severe underfunding of Safari/webkit coupled with a ban on competition meant that it was never going to be viable…

While I admire your stance on the internet being open I disagree. Yes, opening browser engines would be good for the competition. But you missed one point: You assume all players will play fair in the competition. If all browser engines would be allowed over night, what would happen: Google will probably play really unfair. E.g. sadly the layout of Google will be messed up in Safari, youtube videos stutter/have lower…

> There was even a precedent for something similar: [1]

No there wasn't, unless you mean killing a 10 year old version of Internet explorer with a banner to a newer version of Internet explorer is somehow playing unfair.

Post reply on HN