security updates) and things which aren't enabled unless you enable them (iMessage, Photos, Music, Find My Mac, etc.) and load some kind of data you care about into them. That list breaks down into two categories: things which you can't safely be on the Internet without (e.g. Run this command to look at the list of applications which aren't subject to the application-level firewall (the lower-level packet filter does still apply):ĭefaults read /System/Library/Frameworks/amework/Resources/ist ContentFilterExclusionList
* A new preference for users to opt out of these security protectionsīeyond being technically incorrect (a firewall with a whitelist still works) you're missing the larger point: if you don't trust Apple not to surreptitiously access your data, you can't rely on Apple-managed security mechanisms to enforce it. * Strong protections against server failure * A new encrypted protocol for Developer ID certificate revocation checks > In addition, over the the next year we will introduce several changes to our security checks: To further protect privacy, we have stopped logging IP addresses associated with Developer ID certificate checks, and we will ensure that any collected IP addresses are removed from logs. > These security checks have never included the user’s Apple ID or the identity of their device. > Notarization checks if the app contains known malware using an encrypted connection that is resilient to server failures. We do not use data from these checks to learn what individual users are launching or running on their devices. We have never combined data from these checks with information about Apple users or their devices. > Gatekeeper performs online checks to verify if an app contains known malware and whether the developer’s signing certificate is revoked.
I'd be eager to hear any evidence that this is incorrect. Here, FWIW, is what Apple says about Gatekeeper and Notarization. I'm aware of Gatekeeper checking developer certificates upon opening apps over an unencrypted connection (so far Apple is fixing that), but not sure where the gross privacy invasion or security risk is (in particular compared to existing alternatives, not some platonic ideal). While all the new labeling "transparency" feature and telling the user what data an app will gather from you is good, the feature that would really benefit every one better is the ability to block apps from connecting to the internet itself in the first place!).Ĭould you enlighten me what the gross invasion of privacy and the security risk is for the majority of users that do not hack their machine in a way that prevents those connections? This is still the case, except if you are on cellular data if you are on Wifi though, an app cannot be blocked. (Note that it was due to their ad-network and because Apple wants access to users data that iPhones / iPad don't give you the ability to control what app can or cannot connect to the internet. They also used the "privacy" angel as an excuse to further close down their devices, and make it incompatible with anything not approved by them. ) and started marketing their new found love for privacy.īut from the get-go, it was never about user privacy - their goal was to ensure that the users data remained siloed within their eco-system, and their competitors couldn't get access to it.
To counter the bad publicity and the threat from a potential startup, they partly shut-down their ad-network (. Jolla was marketed with a focus on privacy.
#RADIO SILENCE MAC CRACK INSTALL#
(They still make their mobile OS, and you can buy a license for it and install it on some Sony phones).Īt that time, Apple even had an ad-network for apps, and had got embroiled in the PRISM scandal (Apple, and other American corporate were selling their users data to US government agencies. Unfortunately, they couldn't maintain their momentum and had to get out of the business of making phones. The Jolla phone outsold the iPhones in some countries in Europe when it was launched (. Jolla was started by a bunch of ex-Nokia engineers who were working on the next-gen mobile OS, before Microsoft scuttled it. Spot-on - it is just a lip-service, and initiated after Jolla launched its Sailfish OS phone.