undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbrookst1y ago0 comments

Strange claim.

Security isn’t a one-bit thing where you’re either perfectly secure or not. If someone breaks into your house through a window and steals your stuff, that does not make it a lie to claim that locking your front door is more secure.

In any event, Apple’s claim isn’t entirely true. It’s also not entirely false.

Browsers absolutely require JIT to be remotely performant. Giving third parties JIT on iOS would decrease security. And also we know Apple’s fetish for tight platform control, so it’s not like they’re working hard to find a way to do secure JIT for 3P.

But a security flaw in Safari’s process isolation has exactly zero bearing on the claim that giving third party apps JIT has security implications. That’s a very strange claim to make.

Security doesn’t lend itself to these dramatic pronouncements. There’s always multiple “except if” layers.

0 comments

lxgr1y ago

> Giving third parties JIT on iOS would decrease security.

Well, at least in this case it would have greatly increased security (since it would have allowed the availability of actual, native Chrome and Firefox ports).

And otherwise: Does Apple really have zero trust in their OS in satisfying the basic functionality of isolating processes against each other? This has been a feature of OSes since the first moon landing.

Rohansi1y ago

If JIT is such a problem then Apple shouldn't use it themselves. Sure, they let you disable it but it's still enabled by default while everyone pushes the narrative that Apple is all about security.

brookstOP1y ago

JIT isn’t the problem. It’s giving control of JIT to third parties.

We can still hate on Apple, it’s just more accurate to say they don’t trust their own app sandboxes to stand up to LLVM / assembly attacks from malicious apps with JIT access.

Rohansi1y ago

I just don't buy that it's a special security concern at all. There are so many other possible security vulnerabilities to exploit that don't involve a JIT compiler. So why would Apple specifically restrict third party apps from JIT?

It's realistically just another way to ensure they maintain control over app distribution. Safari sucks for web apps. Third party browsers are just different shells over Safari on iOS. Apps built on things like React Native support hotfixing without slow app store reviews - but your app will be slow without JIT and rules force you to still go through reviews for feature changes.

There's no issue with any of this on Android.

fsflover1y ago

> It’s giving control of JIT to third parties

Any real-world examples demonstrating how it's insecure? Here and now it demonstrably decreases the security.

fsflover1y ago

The alternative browsers have the required site isolation but aren't allowed. There's no fix for Safari and you must use it. I think it's very clearly decreasing the users' security.

brookstOP1y ago

Binary thinking is unhealthy.

Alternative browsers would introduce other security concerns, including JIT. It’s debatable whether that would be a net security gain or loss, but it’s silly to just pretend it’s not a thing.

Security as the product of multiple risks.

Discovering a new risk does not mean all of the other ones evaporate and all decision making should be made solely with this one factor in mind.

lxgr1y ago

Can you provide any arguments that JIT would in fact decrease security other than "Apple says so"?

Every major mobile and desktop OS other than iOS has supported it for over a decade. Apple is just using this as a fig leaf.

fsflover1y ago

"Decreasing the security" is not binary thinking. It's just a fact today. Also, ability to run software doesn't make you less secure. I never saw any real proof of that. It's the opposite: Competition between different browsers forces them to increase the security, and it doesn't work for Safari on iOS.

raxxorraxor1y ago

I think a detached and distanced perspective must come to the conclusion that vendor lock-in isn't healthy. For security, performance or flexibility it tends to fall short sooner or later.

One could also talk about the relevance of a speculative attack that hasn't been abused for years. There can be multiple reasons for that, but we shouldn't just ignore the main design motivation of Apple here. That would be frivolous and that excludes serious security discussions.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsbrookst1y ago0 comments

Strange claim.

In any event, Apple’s claim isn’t entirely true. It’s also not entirely false.

But a security flaw in Safari’s process isolation has exactly zero bearing on the claim that giving third party apps JIT has security implications. That’s a very strange claim to make.

Security doesn’t lend itself to these dramatic pronouncements. There’s always multiple “except if” layers.

0 comments

lxgr1y ago

> Giving third parties JIT on iOS would decrease security.

Well, at least in this case it would have greatly increased security (since it would have allowed the availability of actual, native Chrome and Firefox ports).

Rohansi1y ago

If JIT is such a problem then Apple shouldn't use it themselves. Sure, they let you disable it but it's still enabled by default while everyone pushes the narrative that Apple is all about security.

brookstOP1y ago

JIT isn’t the problem. It’s giving control of JIT to third parties.

We can still hate on Apple, it’s just more accurate to say they don’t trust their own app sandboxes to stand up to LLVM / assembly attacks from malicious apps with JIT access.

Rohansi1y ago

There's no issue with any of this on Android.

fsflover1y ago

> It’s giving control of JIT to third parties

Any real-world examples demonstrating how it's insecure? Here and now it demonstrably decreases the security.

fsflover1y ago

The alternative browsers have the required site isolation but aren't allowed. There's no fix for Safari and you must use it. I think it's very clearly decreasing the users' security.

brookstOP1y ago

Binary thinking is unhealthy.

Alternative browsers would introduce other security concerns, including JIT. It’s debatable whether that would be a net security gain or loss, but it’s silly to just pretend it’s not a thing.

Security as the product of multiple risks.

Discovering a new risk does not mean all of the other ones evaporate and all decision making should be made solely with this one factor in mind.

lxgr1y ago

Can you provide any arguments that JIT would in fact decrease security other than "Apple says so"?

Every major mobile and desktop OS other than iOS has supported it for over a decade. Apple is just using this as a fig leaf.

fsflover1y ago

raxxorraxor1y ago

I think a detached and distanced perspective must come to the conclusion that vendor lock-in isn't healthy. For security, performance or flexibility it tends to fall short sooner or later.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse