- Ashrakal@lemmy.mlEnglish5 days
Good change.
- It helps the less tech savvy users,
- It actually forces developers to write their app properly.
Software should not operate at a privileged level “just in case”, but rather have a well-defined functional boundary.
5 daysIt’s not clear exactly what Apple is going to impose here. In principle, trying to ensure users understand the implications of a permission is good. In practice, Apple is famous for keeping users from making decisions they might reasonably want to make on phones, and it’s starting to creep into the Mac; installing an app Apple hasn’t signed requires the command line, for example.
- WolfLink@sh.itjust.worksEnglish4 days
installing an app Apple hasn’t signed requires the command line, for example
It doesn’t, but it does make a scary popup, and requires the user to know to go to settings to find the section to override that popup.
- egregiousRac@piefed.socialEnglish5 days
Apple also has a history of requiring excessively scary permission requests for things that Apple apps do without prompting. They abuse the permission system to foster a sense that Apple products are safe and any competitor is dangerous.
- UltraBlack@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
Competitors meaning also third party apps.
Apple’s apps have inherently more permissions than third party apps can ever dream of
Right, because they only make money on apps purchased from The App Store.
- egregiousRac@piefed.socialEnglish4 days
Even from their store. They were being investigated by German antitrust authorities and last month they agreed to reduce the fear mongering for EU users. The agreement doesn’t apply to the rest of the world.
Tbh that makes sense cause I saw crazy stories of AI deleting important files
- badgermurphy@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
I think Apple is shining light on an important reality here:
In the modern era, the populace is practically required to use technological devices that it is unreasonable to expect them to fully understand. So, rather than leave the consequences of that lack of understanding to fall on them with a shrug, it is better for everyone if those devices and their makers do their best to help them by limiting the impact of their ignorance of that particular technological niche.
In that vein, I feel that it is long overdue to apply “the principle of least privilege” and a “defense in depth” philosophy to home computing devices and operating systems. Compartmentalizing data and functionality behind fine-grained permissions with verbose, plain speech descriptions of what those permissions are for, along with what should and should not be requesting those permissions, would go a long way to prevent these sorts of data abuses. It would also help to limit how much damage viruses and malware could do if installed.
For example. I’m frankly struggling to come up with any valid use cases for full disk access on a computer beyond file backups. I’m sure there are some, but almost nobody would need to use them, so a dire, flashing warning seems in order.
It is clear that sane regulation of unscrupulous software behavior won’t be forthcoming any time soon, but even then, you still should lock your doors even though trespassing is illegal, metaphically speaking. “Trust but verify,” one of the only good statements out of Ronald Reagan’s mouth.
- Séimhe (sé / é)@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
The apps i use have to request disk access which i can approve or not. I always assumed that meant problems like this were not possible. I think many of us have been under a false impression because of this. I assumed the other apps were secured, which was foolish of me, I admit.
- sanzky@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
I think the issue is that it becomes an everything or nothing. some people want to give apps access to their own documents but don’t realize their are also giving access to things like their chat messages, cookies, etc.
If they aim to provide a more granular approach while still allowing full access to those that need it, Im ok with that
- 5 days
All of computing beyond programming with switches is “protecting the user from themselves.”
“Why use a language? Aren’t you able to perfectly program in binary? I’m not going to waste time building something just because you’re stupid.”
- dudeface@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
MacOS is an open platform, I am glad you have to jump through a few hoops to put yourself in danger unlike windows
An “open” platform?
Edit: Of course, here come the fanboys lol it’s ok. I was one of you once. You’ll grow.
Being able to run a program on an OS is the bare minimum. Anything not signed by Daddy Apple, you have to add an exception. The moment the exceptions are no longer enough to “protect the user against themselves,” you can’t do a thing. Why? Because it’s a fully closed, walled platform.
It’s like being in prison and being told you’re free because you can walk in the yard.
- dudeface@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
Downloaded apps that are unsigned just need to be approved in settings
It is clear you don’t know what you are talking about
You own the keys? It is actually extremely clear that you have no clue about what you are talking about. Re-read what I said.
- dudeface@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
I read it, none of makes sense to anyone that understands how computer work
You argued I couldn’t run anything I wanted, I proved you can
Go learn how an operating system works
I read the article, and I think DickHertz’s comment is pretty much right. The article’s example illustrates the point:
For example, Inc. columnist Jason Aten recently discovered that Meta’s Muse AI assistant somehow had synced his entire local Messages database and was using those messages as context for its tasks.
Aten did not understand that the Messages database is stored on the disk (presumably) unencrypted and readable by anything with full disk access. He got a result he didn’t want because he did not understand the implications of granting that permission, and Apple seeks to add more friction to the process to protect users from making that mistake.
- 4am@lemmy.zipEnglish5 days
Even if it was encrypted, it could be unlocked because with full disk access it can read the local private key, which probably doesn’t need a passphrase because it’s be a pain in the ass for the user to retype that every reboot or more
Starting to see why you shouldn’t let any corporate AI loose on your daily driver yet?
Macs have a hardware secure enclave that apps can use to store keys where other apps can’t access them. Apple itself does not seem to be making adequate use of it here.
- 5 days
Yeah, I read it. That’s kind of the point. Apple’s adding more guardrails because people will click Allow on damn near anything without thinking about what they’re actually giving access to. 🙄
That really depends on how you design the pop-up dialogue. If it looks like a standard EULA, yeah, most people will just skip reading. If you darken the screen, and use large, flashing warnings with a short and clear info about the limited amount of cases for such a dangerous permission to be ok, they will for sure look closer.
Late Edit: And make sure you don’t fatigue your clients with a permanent spam of warnings! Holy fuck, MS with their UAC really had to learn that one the hard way. If every single software installation and change of system settings warns you of proceeding then the warning becomes useless (and these warnings were actually one of the first things i deactivated on fresh installations exactly of that issue)
