Craig Federighi ; side loading is a cybercriminal’s best friend

[Heraldique]

Summary

Craig Federighi has told people on the web summit that side loading is a cybercriminal best friend 

 

Quotes

Quote

“As an engineer who wants iPhone to stay as secure as possible for our users, there is one part I worry about and that’s the provision that would require iPhone to allow sideloading. In the name of giving users more choice, that one provision would take away consumers’ choice of a more secure platform. All of this comes at a time where people are keeping more personal and sensitive information than ever on their iPhones. And I can tell you there have never been cybercriminals more determined to get your hands on it.” 

 

My thoughts

It’s interesting that now Apple is finally addressing the issue. The argument that side loading apps would be a security threat is valid in my opinion but it doesn’t excuse apple monopolistic practises on the App Store 

 

Sources

 https://9to5mac.com/2021/11/03/craig-federighi-keynote-side-loading-speech/

[Somerandomtechyboi]

18 minutes ago, Heraldique said:

“As an engineer who wants iPhone to stay as secure as possible for our users, there is one part I worry about and that’s the provision that would require iPhone to allow sideloading. In the name of giving users more choice, that one provision would take away consumers’ choice of a more secure platform.

Literally every single android user that sideloads and graphene os users:

 

[Bombastinator]

26 minutes ago, Heraldique said:

Summary

Craig Federighi has told people on the web summit that side loading is a cybercriminal best friend 

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

It’s interesting that now Apple is finally addressing the issue. The argument that side loading apps would be a security threat is valid in my opinion but it doesn’t excuse apple monopolistic practises on the App Store 

 

Sources

 https://9to5mac.com/2021/11/03/craig-federighi-keynote-side-loading-speech/

I don’t think it’s meant to be an excuse.  what other ways to solve the issue are available? Keeping cost in mind. Lots of things can be fixed with money, but tossing too much of it can put the tosser at a competitive disadvantage. The complaint seems to be that side-loading may be cheap for the implementor and the end user initially, but potentially much more expensive for both in the long run.  There are lots of things that made stuff cheaper initially that we are now paying for.  Plastic and carbon emissions come to mind.  Cheap objects and cheap power turned out to be more expensive for everyone eventually.  

[Arika]

Hey Apple, there are stupid people that say the same thing about encryption, are you going to ban encryption on your iphones too?

[Bombastinator]

17 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Hey Apple, there are stupid people that say the same thing about encryption, are you going to ban encryption on your iphones too?

An excellent example. encryption is a layer of defense.  One under threat lately. Apple has been running a trusted model. How do they move to an untrusted model? Apple has a skin. Side loading punctures that skin. Skin doesn’t stop everything it just reduces the invasion level.  The human body has both kinds of defenses. Multiple layers of defense. Punctures are still bad though.  If the defenses of the interior of apple software are weak a puncture would be more catastrophic than it would be otherwise.  Cats have a notoriously tough intestine.  Their other immune defenses are weak though. Cats can eat some wild crazy things, but Lillies are so dangerous to cats that merely having them in a house can kill them.  Makes me wonder what weaknesses may lay behind the protection. Could apple software survive side loading?

Edited November 4, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Estiar]

Android has side loading, but I don't see that being a gaping security flaw in it. The option to sideload isn't enabled by default, and those who are your average phone user will never turn that option on. Even I have never sideloaded an app in the past four years. There is no good reason (non-monitary) to ban side loading. A simple toggle switch in the settings will be just as effective in securing your device.

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, estiar said:

Android has side loading, but I don't see that being a gaping security flaw in it. The option to sideload isn't enabled by default, and those who are your average phone user will never turn that option on. Even I have never sideloaded an app in the past four years. There is no good reason (non-monitary) to ban side loading. A simple toggle switch in the settings will be just as effective in securing your device.

Android also runs a much weaker requirement system for putting apps on its store.  Myself I don’t pretend to see everything.  I used to be an android user and quit.  It was actually really unpleasant because the most important piece of software for my life didn’t run on iPhone and I had to switch to an inferior work alike.  I moved to iPhone for increased security.

[Brooksie359]

41 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Hey Apple, there are stupid people that say the same thing about encryption, are you going to ban encryption on your iphones too?

How are these things comparable? They are saying that sideloading will make their product less secure and potentially allow people to get access to people's sensitive data. Idk how encryption would make apples platform less secure and allow people to get access to their sensitive data when it is literally meant to do the opposite. I mean yeah there are people who want to say encryption can help criminals do crimes but that isn't really all that comparable. I mean it's not like people being able to hide their conversations from people is a bad thing for security it's just a thing a in no way really harms the user or their security. 

[Arika]

7 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

They are saying that sideloading will make their product less secure and potentially allow people to get access to people's sensitive data

Quote

“Sideloading is a cybercriminal’s best friend,” Federighi said.

from the mouth of the person.

 

how many times have we seen governments say essentially the same thing about encryption?

 

 

If it's done the same way as Android, then it wouldn't affect people who chose not to side load, or open up the system to allow side loading. But it gives other people the option to take those risks if they see fit.

 

This is the thing i don't understand about the argument of "side loading will make iOS less secure", it's like people (and even Apple's own brass) don't actually have faith that Apple's software engineers would be able to implement something that gives the same amount of security to those who don't delve into side loading. Have the toggle option set behind a touchID/faceID/whateverID to unlock it, if it's not unlocked then everything functions exactly as it does now.

 

If it can't stand up to purely just "allowing" side-loading as an option (again, for the people that want it), then Apple's security isn't that good and is only able to be as "secure" as it is when everything is forced to come through their own app store....which might i remind you has had malware on it in the past, which got through their security checks...which to me isn't real security.

[saltycaramel]

If sideloading is ever enabled, I’d like a “nominate a tech-savy relative” option that asked for approval from that relative whenever the user tries to use sideloading.

 

I’d be the techy relative of my loved ones so I’d have about the same peace of mind I have now knowing sideloading isn’t even possible.

 

(users without a techy relative would be screwed tho)

 

Otherwise it’d be easy to trick the user into activating sideloading, both by bad actors and good actors (Epic, Facebook, etc.).

 

Also whenever sideloading is activated it should be a one-shot thing, not a persistent option. Ideally you’d need to activate it on a case by case basis, inputting your password (not just a quick glance at FaceID, actually typing the password). 

 

And it should be possible to lock it completely via parental controls for kids.

 

These measures would give me some peace of mind. Not as much as I have now. It’s scary to think about a world were a “locked down” mobile system isn’t offered for those who want it for their loved ones. And it’s scary to think about the “bad actors gold rush” that sideloading would enable. There’s a billion iPhones out there, they would be a juicy target for scams of every kind. 

[saltycaramel]

7 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Have the toggle option set behind a touchID/faceID/whateverID to unlock it, if it's not unlocked then everything functions exactly as it does now.

 

It takes just one big social app (Facebook), media app (Netflix) or big game (Fortnite) that instructs users to activate it and suddenly everybody has that option activated now. 

[Arika]

8 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

 

It takes just one big social app (Facebook), media app (Netflix) or big game (Fortnite) that instructs users to activate it and suddenly everybody has that option activated now. 

so stupid people should ruin it for everyone else?

 

Hell, even make the user acknowledge every "unknown" app (ie not from the app store) installation request with their touchID/faceID etc.

 

just because some people don't read warnings, doesn't mean it's right to lock out everyone from having the option. They did it on MacOS, so why not iOS?

 

If they did, I might actually be able to switch to iOS fully, but currently there are things on my tablet and phone that i have sideloaded because it's not available through any of the app stores

[Chris Pratt]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I don’t think it’s meant to be an excuse.  what other ways to solve the issue are available? Keeping cost in mind. Lots of things can be fixed with money, but tossing too much of it can put the tosser at a competitive disadvantage. The complaint seems to be that side-loading may be cheap for the implementor and the end user initially, but potentially much more expensive for both in the long run.  There are lots of things that made stuff cheaper initially that we are now paying for.  Plastic and carbon emissions come to mind.  Cheap objects and cheap power turned out to be more expensive for everyone eventually.  

It's BS. Apple just doesn't want people to be able to bypass their store, where they make obscene revenue. Apple already "solved" this in Mac, where installs from outside the Mac App Store are blocked out of the box, but you can disable it from it settings. Noobs that don't know better will leave it alone, while power users could then sideload if they want. It's trivial, costs nothing, and there's no reason not to enable it other than pure greed.

[mr moose]

Side loading can only be a problem if you actually go to the trouble of side loading unknown apps.  

 

Android has allowed side loading forever, it has 80% of the market and to date does not seem to be a problem that requires intervention from OS makers.

 

 

This is just more Apple BS.   Companies like apple are not your friends, they don't care about you, your privacy, your security or anything about you other than to get your money and not let another company get it.  

[Mark Kaine]

16 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

both by bad actors and good actors (Epic, Facebook, etc.).

Which of those is the "good one"?

[saltycaramel]

1 minute ago, Arika S said:

so stupid people should ruin it for everyone else?

Security is not a matter of “stupid vs not stupid”. 

Users come in every shape and tech savy-ness, “victim blaming” doesn’t solve the problem.

 

We need to strike a balance between security and the freedom to sideload. Maybe limited sideloading by trusted developers and a kill switch that Apple could use to kill those apps remotely should the need arise. 

[Arika]

1 minute ago, saltycaramel said:

Maybe limited sideloading by trusted developers and a kill switch that Apple could use to kill those apps remotely should the need arise. 

that's what the app store is..... that's not a solution.

 

 

Quote

Security is not a matter of “stupid vs not stupid”. 

normally, no. In this instance it is.

 

What is the danger to YOU, specifically you, saltycaramel, if Apple allowed sideloading and i chose to unlock the option on my iPad and you didn't?

[Mark Kaine]

16 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

 

It takes just one big social app (Facebook), media app (Netflix) or big game (Fortnite) that instructs users to activate it and suddenly everybody has that option activated now. 

nope,  because sideloading only activates once, for a single app/install,  at least that's how i recall it and the sensible way to do this. 

 

This "news" is simply more fearmongering from apple, it starts getting annoying,  time they get facebooked,  i mean meta'd...

[saltycaramel]

On 11/4/2021 at 7:16 AM, mr moose said:

Side loading can only be a problem if you actually go to the trouble of side loading unknown apps.  

 

Android has allowed side loading forever, it has 80% of the market and to date does not seem to be a problem that requires intervention from OS makers.

 

 

This is just more Apple BS.   Companies like apple are not your friends, they don't care about you, your privacy, your security or anything about you other than to get your money and not let another company get it.  

 

Security of apps and payments on Apple’s ecosystem enabled a multi-billion dollar software market and many jobs.

Just saying.

They may care about profit but incidentally that also causes the software market to flourish.

 

On 11/4/2021 at 7:20 AM, Arika S said:

What is the danger to YOU, specifically you, saltycaramel, if Apple allowed sideloading and i chose to unlock the option on my iPad and you didn't?

Suddenly I can’t be sure my loved ones aren’t being social-engineered/phished into installing something nefarious. 

 

On 11/4/2021 at 7:20 AM, Mark Kaine said:

nope,  because sideloading only activates once, for a single app/install,  at least that's how i recall it and the sensible way to do this. 

If it’s one-shot case-by-case, OK.

 

But now millions of people are familiar on how to do it, if Epic or Netflix instructed them to. So next time a bad actor calls for it to be activated, they’ll quickly do it. 

 

The Macs are a less juicy target and are like trucks.

iPhones are bikes you can fat finger while in bed.

Bikes don’t need the same driving license you need to drive trucks. It’s a broader, diverse audience..

[wamred]

2 hours ago, Heraldique said:

Summary

Craig Federighi has told people on the web summit that side loading is a cybercriminal best friend 

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

It’s interesting that now Apple is finally addressing the issue. The argument that side loading apps would be a security threat is valid in my opinion but it doesn’t excuse apple monopolistic practises on the App Store 

 

Sources

 https://9to5mac.com/2021/11/03/craig-federighi-keynote-side-loading-speech/

Yeah, I agree he has a point but that still doesn’t excuse their actions on the App Store. 

[Arika]

1 minute ago, saltycaramel said:

Suddenly I can’t be sure my loved ones aren’t being social-engineered/phished into installing something nefarious. 

that's not what i asked, i said YOU, not people you know.

 

Social-engineering isn't exclusive to app downloads. In fact i don't even think i've heard of any phishing attempts or scams where there is an attempt to get people to install unknown apps on android, where there is a much bigger market.

 

And it's simply because if you want to get something out of people, there are much much easier ways of doing it that getting someone to

1. go to a website,
2. downloading an app,
3. allowing unknown access, and ignoring any warnings
4. opening the app,
5. entering all their details.

[saltycaramel]

Just now, Arika S said:

that's not what i asked, i said YOU, not people you know.

Why should only I care about myself and not my loved ones and their bank accounts and their pictures where maybe I’m pictured in too and their contact list and their notes etc.?

These are not “people I know”.

 

As for me, one day I could lower my guard as well..

[Mark Kaine]

4 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

If it’s one-shot case-by-case, OK.

 

But now millions of people are familiar on how to do it, if Epic or Netflix instructed them to. So next time a bad actor calls for it to be activated, they’ll quickly do it. 

->

 

Its kinda like pc, just more clear. 

 

I just don't think its healthy to patronize a group of people in the way apple does... if anything they should give the option for people who *really* don't want freedom and those who maybe like the tech but want to keep a free will while using it.

[Bombastinator]

31 minutes ago, Chris Pratt said:

It's BS. Apple just doesn't want people to be able to bypass their store, where they make obscene revenue. Apple already "solved" this in Mac, where installs from outside the Mac App Store are blocked out of the box, but you can disable it from it settings. Noobs that don't know better will leave it alone, while power users could then sideload if they want. It's trivial, costs nothing, and there's no reason not to enable it other than pure greed.

Hmm… That there is a financial incentive does sound unarguable.  If what you say is true though then  it wouldn’t make much if any significant difference to their revenue whether they did it or not.  So why are they doing it?  It would certainly be easier to simply slap something in an update.  Cheap fix, gets people off their back.. I’m wondering if perhaps there is another reason?  We don’t have their statistical analysis info.  Apple can track locations for both iPhones and Macs.  They both have find my and mapping stuff.   They can also track what kind of stuff is accessed at least in a rough way.  What is the difference between the two markets?

Edited November 4, 2021 by Bombastinator

[saltycaramel]

There are economic incentives on both sides of this debate.

 

Apple’s incentives just happen to also be aligned with more security.

 

Epic/etc. incentives just happen to be aligned with less security.
 

Small indie devs, I’m not sure. They thrived for 13 years because users had the peace of mind of paying thru Apple within a secure environment. 

 

There’s also another player/interest: US/EU regulators that are in “nice AppStore you have there, would be a shame if something happened to it” mode against Apple (and others). So it would be in Apple’s interest to relax some rules in order to be less of a target for regulation.