Apple's Craig Federighi Says Sideloading on iPhone Would Open the Floodgates to Malware

[Wildkraut]

If Apple allow sideloading on iOS and there follows an increase in malware and fraud, then what?

Then what, what?
How did the world survive pre 2007?
Must have been a massacre on the web!
Not even Apple would exist, if all would have been restrictive from the beginning like Apple is restricting now. Apple is acting anticompetitive and blocking innovations.

 

[mrochester]

Okay….. but you can just not use the side load feature.

Keeping your loop closed.


What someone else installs doesn’t exactly affect you. If someone else wants to open their device up. They can.

You can choose to not side load anything.

What about the people who don’t understand what sideloading is or the implications of it? How do you propose those people are protected from being exposed to malware and fraud?

 

[mrochester]

Then what, what?
How did the world survive pre 2007?
Must have been a massacre on the web!
Not even Apple would exist, if all would have been restrictive from the beginning like Apple is restricting now.

How do you propose to reduce the potential malware and fraud after removing one of the protections against it?

 

[jmgregory1]

Bad Apple: App Store Rife with Fraud, Fleeceware

Malicious apps make up 2 percent of top grossing apps in Apple App Store.

threatpost.com

That kind of fraud and theft, you mean?

That article and the initial Post article leave a lot of fine print about what is fraud or malicious on the App Store. There is no doubt that the fact that the App Store is known for having consumers who are willing to pay for apps is going to attract those people and companies willing to take that money in ways that are less than righteous.

One could argue that IAP’s can be malicious when it’s children agreeing to purchases not realizing it’s real money they’re spending.

So if Apple can’t stop a handful of developers from cheating their customers, does that mean Apple should just open the floodgates and let everyone side load whatever app they want, malicious or not?

 

[ajfahey]

So long as the actions of side-loading users don’t bleed into the sandboxes of those that want the extra measure of safety that the current restrictions provide, I don’t care how little or much others want to risk with their setups so long as it voids any warranty protections they have when they turn on side loading.

 

[RalfTheDog]

I think this should be allowed but only if the user chooses to flip a switch. They should be shown a disclaimer informing them, they don't get any support without a total wipe and reload of their phone. Beyond that, developers should be given the option of not allowing their software on a phone that has been compromised by allowing sideloading.

 

[Mockletoy]

That article and the initial Post article leave a lot of fine print about what is fraud or malicious on the App Store. There is no doubt that the fact that the App Store is known for having consumers who are willing to pay for apps is going to attract those people and companies willing to take that money in ways that are less than righteous.

One could argue that IAP’s can be malicious when it’s children agreeing to purchases not realizing it’s real money they’re spending.

So if Apple can’t stop a handful of developers from cheating their customers, does that mean Apple should just open the floodgates and let everyone side load whatever app they want, malicious or not?

I reject the entire premise of your question, as the relationship between sideloading and App Store scams you are trying to create simply doesn’t exist. It’s nonsense.

Android scammers target the Play Store, not sideloaders. Why? Because that’s where the vast majority of the customers are. It would be the same on iOS.

But if you can explain to me how my loading a DOS emulator to mess around with the stuff I used to play with as a kid would make your phone less secure, by all means …

 

[Mockletoy]

I think this should be allowed but only if the user chooses to flip a switch. They should be shown a disclaimer informing them, they don't get any support without a total wipe and reload of their phone. Beyond that, developers should be given the option of not allowing their software on a phone that has been compromised by allowing sideloading.

Why should it void anyone’s warranty?

To the best of my knowledge the only company routinely bricking Apple devices with poorly-written software is Apple.

 

[bluecoast]

I didn’t watch the speech but Apple usually deliberately bundles the three seperate issues of

- side loading
- competing payment providers
- Apple’s own % cut

Into one argument.

However, you could stil have the latter two without side loading.

And that’s what Apple is more concerned about protecting than user security

(though that’s still important to them as it’s part of the iPhone USP).

 

[Wildkraut]

How do you propose to reduce the potential malware and fraud?

By teaching people to use that slimy flubber thing inside their heads.
But not only inside the AppStore or Internet, because the same conventions applies to many areas of life.
Not blindly click on stuff, read things carefully, visit serious sites by entering their domain address and not by clicking one of the top10 google results.
Don’t blindly fill out forms, nor fill out flyers to take part of stupid mall tombolas, etc. Teach people to become more careful, smarter and technology affine, instead of dumb consuming zombies.

 

[Carlanga]

Then don't limit what one can download, let the app store have emulators and any type of app.

 

[fmillion]

A.You are wrong. Every company, every bank, every greedy company will force you to download the app from an external store.
B. In my country, thieves thoroughly instruct victims how to disable android security and install fake bank applications. Hundreds of millions of losses. On iOS, this was impossible.

Because Android definitely already has this problem. I mean, I have an Android device, and I definitely know the pain of having to install the Microsoft App Store, the Spotify App Store, the Huntington Bank App Store, the Capital One App Store, the Firefox App Store...

As for point B, what about if enabling sideloading simply resets the phone to factory defaults? Add in text that says "No tech support department will ever ask you to do this." Even have scam warnings. "Enabling this option is often used by scammers in an attempt to steal your personal information by way of hacked or modified apps." Geeks will just turn on sideloading as soon as they setup their new device, but they're also least likely to be caught off guard by scammers. Yes, this would definitely make sideloading less "useful" as a means of alternative app distribution, but it would satisfy developer needs in a more convenient way. As for alternative app stores, I've said before, I'd be fine with Apple requiring validation of those app stores. Like how you have to declare what permissions your app needs, "permission to install apps" would be a permission. You'd need to pay some kind of much higher dev program fee, or maybe if you're willing to host your own infrastructure and thus get a lot fewer of the App Store benefits, you only have to pay like 5% of what you charge for apps to Apple. (If Apple's not hosting or reviewing or advertising your apps then this justifies the lower cut?) This means Apple can still cut off an app store that's caught distributing malware.

 

[Mockletoy]

What about the people who don’t understand what sideloading is or the implications of it? How do you propose those people are protected from being exposed to malware and fraud?

Some people are too stupid to go outside without walking off a cliff or blundering in front of a passing car, but that doesn’t mean I need someone to come lock me in my house “for my own good.”

 

[Surne]

I feel like this is small potatoes considering Apple is planning to install government abusable backdoors on our iPhones.

Also, I don't see how one person deciding they want to sideload an app puts my iPhone at risk for malware. Their apps are not going on my phone, my phone will still be secure. Those who don't want to sideload wont, and those who want to would just now have the choice to.

 

[BulkSlash]

Really? They why is Facebook still in Google Play? Oh that's right... because most people always go to their respective app stores for software. It's simple and easy. If it's not there, they move on.
Enabling sideloading will not lead to the end of times for apps or app stores. If that were true, Google Play would have died years ago or be a barren waste land.

Android hasn’t implemented all of the advertising revenue killing technologies Apple has recently added to iOS. Facebook has even admitted it has resulted in a drop in revenue (https://www.macrumors.com/2021/10/26/apple-privacy-rules-blame-facebook-earnings/). Just today we’ve seen Facebook trying to circumvent in-app purchases (https://www.macrumors.com/2021/11/03/facebook-creator-subscription-links/).

Plus I never said it would be the “end of times” for the App Store. Most developers aren’t interested in spying on their users and harvesting their data so the App Store is perfectly fine for their needs. Facebook has tried to sidestep iOS security on numerous occasions, even abusing Enterprise distribution certificates to do so. I think it’s perfectly plausible they would leave the App Store so they can avoid the privacy rules Apple impose. Enough people are addicted to Facebook that they would be willing to jump through the extra hoops needed to side load the app. It’s not about the end of the App Store I’m worried about, it’s side loading allowing security restrictions to be bypassed that concerns me.

 

[ACHD]

What about the people who don’t understand what sideloading is or the implications of it? How do you propose those people are protected from being exposed to malware and fraud?

The same way apple did it on the macOS which has been available for more than 10 years.

You always bring up disclaimers about what it is and it’s risks and forcing you to allow it…… then allow installation from outside sources and then install an app downloaded from the internet.

But what you don’t realize is sideloading already exists in a particular fashion already.

MDM profiles allow enterprise stores to exist. These allow a catalog of apps to be freely downloaded bypassing apples none sideloading lock. These MDM policies also give access to anything on your phone that it’s program to do. Just so you can sideload.


So many do not realize this method exists and with the MDM method you don’t need malware. You can deliver legit applications and let the MDM policies do the spying for you.


Whereas enabling sideloading with disclaimers removes the MDM concerns and dangers. You only need to confirm the app is a legit app from a legit developer.


People that your concerned about already use the MDM methods or follow the instructions to install profiles which is a far greater risk cause that’s not malware it’s just the spying ability of the MDM/profile that can be used……….


By having a legit sideloading method. Less of these users would be exposed to being Morton’s using the already abused MDM method.


People already use the MDM method for cracked apps, legit apps, 3rd party apps, Cydia apps, emulators etc etc.

It’s a big scene actually.

 

[mookc1]

Okay….. but you can just not use the side load feature.

Keeping your loop closed.


What someone else installs doesn’t exactly affect you. If someone else wants to open their device up. They can.

You can choose to not side load anything.

Why don't we just allow a switch to to give owners the ability to activate the backdoor the government wants too.

Pay for an Apple Developer license, or Jailbreak your device so you have the option to side load.

My opinion: It is not a good idea to allow side loading. Again, it's just my opinion.......

 

[RadioHedgeFund]

Sony: "Here is a full frame camera phone with proper manual modes. Want to take really good night shots? You can learn how to use the shutter speeds effectively. Oh, and we included a headphone jack and a 2-stage shutter button. This phone is also yours! Do what you want with it and load whatever you like."

Apple: "Here is a 'Pro' phone with the best cameras on the market but you can't actually use them in manual out of the box. We've designed such clever AI to take pictures you don't actually need to learn how to do it. We also insisted on using USB 2.0 so it takes you an age to transfer all those RAW and 4K video files to your computer. You can only load the apps we say because we treat all our users like children."

 

[BGPL]

This is true, but not the reason why they don't allow it. It's all about money, always has, and always will be for Apple. If it doesn't go through their App Store, they don't get their 30%. Craig isn't being completely honest, but we know it and we expect it.

 

[Shirasaki]

Yes, I agree. Essentially the iOS/iPadOS version of this from the Security & Privacy pane of System Preferences on the Mac...

View attachment 1901615

And what if the bottom option is removed permanently at one point?

 

[BGPL]

Yes, I agree. Essentially the iOS/iPadOS version of this from the Security & Privacy pane of System Preferences on the Mac...

Boot into rescue mode and open terminal, type "csrutil disable" and you'll really open 'er up.

 

[Shirasaki]

But why can't that app be available on the App Store?

If it's an app that does something funky to your phone via the use of private APIs, then there's a reason it isn't on the App Store. Apple restrict the use of private APIs because either they aren't fully functional yet, or they're unsupported and might change in future, rendering existing apps inoperable. That's a terrible experience for the consumer.

Or they find this private API very good for its own use and decides to utilise it internally, while letting third party competing apps figure out workarounds to achieve similar functionality using public API but just couldn’t quite do it.

 

[Shirasaki]

They just push this out as a form of marketing. If they truly believed it the Mac would be locked down.

They’re purposefully pushing the message that iPhones and iPads aren’t really computers.

Absolutely. This is purely for marketing without any justification other than wanting to protect their bottom line.

 

[jmgregory1]

I reject the entire premise of your question, as the relationship between sideloading and App Store scams you are trying to create simply doesn’t exist. It’s nonsense.

Android scammers target the Play Store, not sideloaders. Why? Because that’s where the vast majority of the customers are. It would be the same on iOS.

But if you can explain to me how my loading a DOS emulator to mess around with the stuff I used to play with as a kid would make your phone less secure, by all means …

The answer is, Apple isn’t going to do anything so you can load a DOS emulator onto your iPhone, if it’s not an app they’ve approved and in the App Store. They have to make decisions like this taking into account the potential for harm of their customers, themselves, the Apple brand, etc. And at the end of the day, my initial point was that Apple shouldn’t have to even think about opening up sideloading on iOS because the numbers of people who want it and would use it are infinitesimal when compared to the overall size of the iOS market.

 

[Shirasaki]

This is 100% true even if people want the side-loading. Windows and Mac OS are more vulnerable to malware because you can run any random program you get off the internet. The app store is not perfect but it is better than nothing.

If you want to side-load apps just get an Android phone.

I get it. Android phones are computers now. What a revelation…