← Back to context

Comment by I_Am_Nous

2 years ago

In the face of this kind of threat, it's pretty obvious why Apple treated Beeper as a security risk and took appropriate measures to secure iMessage.

Beeper is the user's choice. And Apple is preventing other companies from providing a more secure iMessage alternative, e.g. one that doesn't even parse messages from people not in the contact list, or doesn't even parse anything without a click, etc.

Apple has had so many zero-click exploits in iMessage, yet they insist that you have to use Lockdown mode to do anything about it, and then proceed to bundle Lockdown mode with lots of potentially unwanted behavior.

I don't think there's any way to claim that Apple is just doing whats in the customer's best security interest.

  • >Beeper is the user's choice.

    Me deciding to ride the subway to work for free is a user's choice, but that doesn't mean it's right. Using infrastructure for free because I feel like it is certainly my choice but I can't justify anger when someone makes me pay to use it since I should have paid in the first place. Currently Apple doesn't run iMessage as an open standard so it runs in "authorized riders only" mode.

    >I don't think there's any way to claim that Apple is just doing whats in the customer's best security interest.

    This isn't what I claimed. I claimed Apple treated unauthorized 3rd party access to their infrastructure as a security risk and worked to shore up that risk. As you pointed out, there have been plenty of zero-click exploits in iMessage. Limiting the devices sending iMessages increases security. I believe Apple doesn't allow iOS VMs in general for the same reason.

I don’t think that’s clear at all. I imagine it’s still trivial for attackers to still send specially crafted one-off payloads.

  • The attack vector is still smaller if Apple restricts iMessage to official devices only compared to any rooted Android phone being able to spam iMessage payloads.