![]() So in my personal definition, this is primarily Open Source in nature despite the license restrictions, though it does not meet the longevity requirements that I believe are an important and fundamental aspect of Open Source. (My personal view - Open Source is about openness and collaboration on changes, not about it being zero-cost or able to be run for nothing by big-tech. Please see for a detailed discussion about whether this license is "Open Source" (summary, definition of OS is open to opinion, and even if it isn't considered OS according to one definition then so-what?) but if not how to make it Open Source whilst maintaining the protections that larossmann is reasonably wanting to enforce for the software that **he** has written. My stepdad saw this when he was experiencing a problem, reported it to Apple, and they pushed a diagnostic app onto his phone (after he emailed back giving them permission, however permission was not required on the phone itself.) While yes they went about this the right way, this could be heavily abused if the wrong person had access because Apple has not cared to put any security in place beyond hoping their employees aren't going to do it (which hasn't always worked out well for them in the past.)Īpple's security on iOS is an illusion, while Android doesn't seem to even try to maintain that illusion. Also, Apple can just push software to your phone whenever it looks OTA. This app was not on the App Store and I helped many of these drivers install it on their iPhones, but as far as I could tell it still had to be registered with Apple. When I worked at Amazon helping our box truck drivers verify their load that was going to the post office they used an app on their phones made by Amazon to scan barcodes. On top of that, Apple can sideload apps, but only Apple and those they allow. They've since fixed those holes (the ones we know about at least), which had been reported to them over a couple of years where they dragged their feet fixing it. ![]() Notoriously Apple's webkit tools for the safari web browser built into every iOS device that you are unable to disable (without jailbreaking) has been insanely insecure and allowed attackers access to all OS information on the phone. But that kind of undermines itself because the malicious code would have had to get on the phone in the first place. The reason Apple will not implement sideloading is because they absolutely do not want anything to interfere with the revenue they make from the app store, one of their biggest money makers (if not their absolute biggest.) One argument they may make for security is that malicious code could go and turn sideloading on. The reason androids are less secure has very little to do with sideloading and more to do with Google not policing their play store well at all. ![]() There's no reason sideloading would sacrifice security for all users on iOS. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |