←back to thread

1183 points robenkleene | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
3pt14159 ◴[] No.24838967[source]
This is one of those tough cases where software cuts both ways.

Some people are smart, informed developers that install a trusted tool to monitor their traffic and have legitimate reasons to want to inspect Apple traffic. They're dismayed.

Most people are the opposite and this move protects the most sensitive data from being easily scooped up or muddled in easily installed apps, or at least easily installed apps that don't use zero days.

Is the world better or worse due to this change? I'd say a touch better, but I don't like the fact that this change was needed in the first place. I trust Apple, but I don't like trusting trust.

replies(19): >>24838993 #>>24839043 #>>24839086 #>>24839126 #>>24839194 #>>24839419 #>>24840315 #>>24841406 #>>24841984 #>>24842961 #>>24843115 #>>24843241 #>>24844017 #>>24844287 #>>24844319 #>>24844636 #>>24845405 #>>24845660 #>>24845932 #
ballenf ◴[] No.24839086[source]
I'd argue this opens up a giant attack surface where malicious software will try to route its command and control communication through a protected service. Do we really want to trust that Apple will keep all 50+ of these privileged services fully protected?

I think it makes the "world" slightly worse in that it will be harder to discover malware. Little snitch has a small user base, but it's been used to identify many forms of malware and protect many more people once the threat is identified.

replies(6): >>24840000 #>>24841973 #>>24843556 #>>24844470 #>>24844572 #>>24894460 #
1. wooger ◴[] No.24894460[source]
Same situation with a government:

Even if you believe all the MPs / representatives are trustworthy and intend to act in your best interests, their competence is going to be limited, so we need to checks and balances and a limit on their power.