iOS 17 to Support App Sideloading to Comply With European Regulations

[AppliedMicro]

And many people only shop at one grocery store, so I guess Walmart has a monopoly on groceries

Obvious logical fallacy.

And where are your sources? You’ve made some rather big claims such as “there are no new security holes”, yet have not cited any sources for these claims

It was you who claimed that sideloading opens up new security holes. The onus of proof or providing evidence is on you - and you haven’t provided any source or evidence, besides appealing to the authority of unnamed experts. Whereas I provided multiple sources to refute your claim.

And Walmart controls the distribution of products in Walmart stores to their customers, just like Apple controls the distribution of products on their platform to their customers, so I guess Walmart has a monopoly on Walmart products???

We‘re not talking about Walmart‘s own branded products - and neither are we talking about the distribution of Apple software or services. We‘re talking about distribution of third party products.

 

[Kal Madda]

It's intended to be usable by average users (among employees).

It was, yes.
But there's no meaningful technical difference "in implementation" (as you said it yourself) to this:

https://www.macrumors.com/2024/04/16/ios-17-5-app-web-downloads-eu/

That's why there's no new security hole or "back door" (as you called it) opened up "in implementation."

The use cases and demographic that can enjoy the benefits of it will be expanded, yes.

But then as now, you still have to trust developers and the apps you're using.
As you said it yourself so nicely: "Nobody is forced".
That also goes for sideloading of apps and alternative app stores.

Also, Apple still reserves the right to review applications offered for sideloading to consumers.

A. Again, it’s intended for employees to access company software. Not for your average Joe to install Super Mario Cart from we’retotallynotscammy.com.

B. Where did I ever say there was no meaningful technical difference in implementation?

C. With this new implementation, there are bound to be new weaknesses. Even if we assume that the business system you’re talking about is similar, it is not the exact same thing. This new implementation uses new code, and so it is not the same, and unless you know of every potential vulnerability that exists with the current version of iOS and it’s implementation of sideloading in the EU, then you cannot possibly know for a fact that this doesn’t open up any new holes in security.

D. Except, no people literally are forced to buy a phone that supports sideloading. Now customers who prefer the greater security of a system that doesn’t support it don’t have a choice but to get a system that supports it.

 

[Kal Madda]

Obvious logical fallacy.

It was you who claimed that sideloading opens up new security holes. The onus of proof or providing evidence is on you - and you haven’t provided any source or evidence, besides appealing to the authority of unnamed experts again?

We‘re not talking about Walmart‘s own branded products - and neither are we talking about the distribution of Apple software or services.

We‘re talking about distribution of third party products.

A. Yes, that’s exactly the point. The argument you’re making about Apple’s supposed “monopoly” status is a logical fallacy. Good job discerning that.

B. It is you who claimed that this new sideloading implementation won’t open any new security holes. Go ahead and try to prove that. I’ll wait…

C. And Walmart sells more than their own branded products, but they decide which third party products they allow to use their platform to sell to customers, and they collect a commission on those sales, just like Apple does…

 

[AppliedMicro]

Again, it’s intended for employees to access company software. Not for your average Joe to install Super Mario Cart from we’retotallynotscammy.com

Doesn’t matter with regards to the technical implementation and security holes (allegedly) having been opened up. Broader appeal to the masses may increase risky behaviour - but it isn’t a security hole.

Where did I ever say there was no meaningful technical difference in implementation?

You said: “not the same as sideloading on devices owned by the general public. So no, it hasn’t existed. Not in this implementation”

Well, it has existed in this implementation. Just with a different target demographic - as you now moved to goalposts to.

With this new implementation, there are bound to be new weaknesses. Even if we assume that the business system you’re talking about is similar, it is not the exact same thing

What is substantially new to this implementation?

sideloading. Now customers who prefer the greater security of a system that doesn’t support it don’t have a choice

As we have established, iPhones have supported sideloading for many years.
So they never had that „choice“ in the first place - particularly not from the „security“ standpoint you made it about.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Yes, that’s exactly the point. The argument you’re making about Apple’s supposed “monopoly” status is a logical fallacy.

Nope.
Many people shopping at one store doesn‘t make a monopoly.
But a monopoly (or monopoly power) makes many people shop at one store.

It is you who claimed that this new sideloading implementation won’t open any new security holes. Go ahead and try to prove that.

Alright, I concede: There may be security holes that we don’t know about - and since we don’t know, they can’t be proven. Cause we can’t rule out things we don’t know about.

But my point still stands: sideloading has been technically possible for a long time - and the EU‘s DMA doesn’t require substantial changes to that. The legal obligations with regards to app installation can be fulfilled with the technical implementation iOS has included for many years.

You. on the other hand, made a positive claim that it would open up security holes.
That claim should be provable by providing examples and evidence.

You’ve so far wholly failed to do it and prove your point.

And Walmart sells more than their own branded products, but they decide which third party products they allow to use their platform to sell to customers, and they collect a commission on those sales, just like Apple does…

Exactly. And when Walmart is the only store in the relevant market, they have a monopoly.

 

[Kal Madda]

Doesn’t matter with regards to the technical implementation and security holes (allegedly) having been opened up. Broader appeal to the masses may increase risky behaviour - but it isn’t a security hole.

You said: “not the same as sideloading on devices owned by the general public. So no, it hasn’t existed. Not in this implementation”

Well, it has existed in this implementation. Just with a different target demographic - as you now moved to goalposts to.

What is substantially new to this implementation?

As we have established, iPhones have supported sideloading for many years.
So they never had that „choice“ in the first place - particularly not from the „security“ standpoint you made it about.

A. It’s a different system. Businesses have to sign up on the distribution end of things to an enterprise distribution system, which makes it harder for nefarious actors to distribute malicious apps.

B. Again, different implementation. It isn’t tied to the enterprise app distribution system. It is different.

C. It is a new feature implemented in iOS 17.3 or .4 (I forget which one it was, but it’s recent). It is not the same system that is limited for enterprise use.

D. They have not, not in this way. Not for normal end users with average users being able to be easily tricked into installing malware on their devices like is now possible.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Again, different implementation.

It’s fundamentally the same. The ability of apps to run is determined by signing certificates - and signing isn’t even limited to Apple themselves. Though for the alternative app distribution in the EU, Apple has chosen to require “notarisation” from themselves - which makes it even more secure.

 

[AppliedMicro]

How is removing the option to have a secure platform without that back door to security beneficial for those who specifically bought the iPhone because it didn’t support sideloading?

It did technically support sideloading.

one of the reasons they chose iPhone, because they didn’t have to worry about security holes that sideloading opens up

👉 What security holes are opened up by sideloading (as newly required by the EU)

You made that claim, so please explain and provide evidence.

 

[Kal Madda]

Nope.
Many people shopping at one store doesn‘t make a monopoly.
But a monopoly (or monopoly power) makes many people shop at one store.

Alright, I concede: There may be security holes that we don’t know about - and since we don’t know, they can’t be proven. Cause we can’t rule out things we don’t know about.

You. on the other hand, made a positive claim that it would open up security holes.
That claim should be provable by providing examples and evidence.

You’ve so far wholly failed to do it and prove your point.

Exactly. And when Walmart is the only store in the relevant market, they have a monopoly.

A. Is that even supposed to be a point? Because it doesn’t prove anything about your claims about Apple’s “monopoly” status.

B. Thank you for acknowledging that, this is good progress.

C. In between being busy having to write responses to your comments, I dug back up a couple links for the sources you want.

The Security Implications of ‘Sideloading’ for iPhone Users

Major players in the tech sector have until 2024 to comply with the EU’s new Digital Markets Act, which stipulates that consumers should be able to install apps from any venue - not just the official app store - a practice known as ”sideloading.

www.bitdefender.com

Sideloading on iPhones: Pandora's Box or Path to Freedom?

The concept of sideloading, the ability to install apps outside of the official App Store, has sparked debate around the potential consequences for iPhone users. While some advocate for increased user freedom and access to a wider range of apps, others warn of the security risks it may introduce.

www.linkedin.com

https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Building_a_Trusted_Ecosystem_for_Millions_of_Apps_A_Threat_Analysis_of_Sideloading.pdf

Yes the last one is from Apple, but of all people who should be infinitely familiar with the potential weaknesses and security holes in iOS, Apple has the best information on the matter since they literally have built the system. And there are several other sources I have seen before as well.

D. Apple is not the only store either, so they are not a monopoly.

 

[Kal Madda]

It’s fundamentally the same. The ability of apps to run is determined by signing certificates - and signing isn’t even limited to Apple themselves. Though for the alternative app distribution in the EU, Apple has chosen to require “notarisation” from themselves - which makes it even more secure.

That’s your opinion, but you have know way of knowing they are fundamentally the same. And the fact it was added in a software update, and is made available to non-enterprise distribution, at the very minimum differentiate it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Sideloading on iPhones: Pandora's Box or Path to Freedom?

The concept of sideloading, the ability to install apps outside of the official App Store, has sparked debate around the potential consequences for iPhone users. While some advocate for increased user freedom and access to a wider range of apps, others warn of the security risks it may introduce.

www.linkedin.com

Quote:

“Sideloading circumvents Apple's rigorous App Store vetting process, which helps ensure the safety and security of apps. This raises concerns about the potential for malicious actors to distribute malware or harmful apps disguised as legitimate ones.”

👉 It doesn’t. (Even ”sideloaded”) Apps are still reviewed by Apple.

“Increased Vulnerability to Hacking: Sideloaded apps may not be subject to the same security standards as those on the App Store, potentially creating vulnerabilities that hackers can exploit to gain access to user data or the device itself.”

👉 Apps are still reviewed by Apple.

 

[Kal Madda]

It did technically support sideloading.

👉 What security holes are opened up by sideloading (as newly required by the EU)

You made that claim, so please explain and provide evidence.

A. It supported a tool for businesses to distribute enterprise software to employees, not for average users to install a fake Spotify app and get scammed…

B. People familiar with the matter say it opens security holes. I don’t know exactly what all of those security holes are, but one obvious one I can tell you right now is that average users will now be able to be duped into installing malicious apps far more easily.

 

[Kal Madda]

Quote:

“Sideloading circumvents Apple's rigorous App Store vetting process, which helps ensure the safety and security of apps. This raises concerns about the potential for malicious actors to distribute malware or harmful apps disguised as legitimate ones.”

👉 It doesn’t. (Even ”sideloaded”) Apps are still reviewed by Apple.

“Increased Vulnerability to Hacking: Sideloaded apps may not be subject to the same security standards as those on the App Store, potentially creating vulnerabilities that hackers can exploit to gain access to user data or the device itself.”

👉 Apps are still reviewed by Apple.

Not as thoroughly as those that are reviewed in the App Store. Apple cannot thoroughly review every app that could be side loaded from the internet. So no, it does bypass the rigorous review process.

 

[Kal Madda]

It’s late here, we can pick this up later.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The Security Implications of ‘Sideloading’ for iPhone Users

Major players in the tech sector have until 2024 to comply with the EU’s new Digital Markets Act, which stipulates that consumers should be able to install apps from any venue - not just the official app store - a practice known as ”sideloading.

www.bitdefender.com

Mostly generic fearmongering from a security software vendor.

“Opening iOS to non-vetted third-party downloads will likely generate a lot of fear and confusion around which apps are actually safe to download.”

👉 Apps and developers are still vetted by Apple.
And it doesn’t make for a (new) security hole.

“Threat actors may be enticed to target iPhone owners with scareware scams designed to instill fear that the device needs maintenance or an antivirus scan – all to push the user into a trap.”

👉 They could do so before (albeit Apple would likely have caught them quicker).
Again, it doesn’t make for a (new) security hole.

but you have know way of knowing they are fundamentally the same

There’s just zero reason to assume it is.
Apps are notarised with signatures and these are evaluated to determine their eligibility to run. We know that.

And the fact it was added in a software update

It wasn’t. Apple merely wrapped some user interface, settings and GUI warnings around it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It supported a tool for businesses to distribute enterprise software to employees, not for average users to install a fake Spotify app and get scammed…

Expanded target demographics increase risk by the numbers - but not by opening up new security holes.

People familiar with the matter say it opens security holes. I don’t know exactly what all of those security holes are, but one obvious one I can tell you right now is that average users will now be able to be duped into installing malicious apps far more easily.

I agree that users may be duped more easily and in higher numbers. They likely will be. No question about it.

The definition of a security hole though is (also for me) a vulnerability on a technical level. If every app had to be installed through Apple’s App Store so far, mandating Apple to allow sideloading from other sources would introduce a new substantial vulnerability in my view. Since apps could be installed from other sources for a long time though, it doesn’t.

 

[Kal Madda]

Mostly generic fearmongering from a security software vendor.

“Opening iOS to non-vetted third-party downloads will likely generate a lot of fear and confusion around which apps are actually safe to download.”

👉 Apps and developers are still vetted by Apple.
And it doesn’t make for a (new) security hole.

“Threat actors may be enticed to target iPhone owners with scareware scams designed to instill fear that the device needs maintenance or an antivirus scan – all to push the user into a trap.”

👉 They could do so before (albeit Apple would likely have caught them quicker).
Again, it doesn’t make for a (new) security hole.

There’s just zero reason to assume it is.
Apps are notarised with signatures and these are evaluated to determine their eligibility to run. We know that.

It wasn’t. Apple merely wrapped some user interface, settings and GUI warnings around it.

A. So just dismiss it as fearmongering when cybersecurity experts who actually work in that industry say it’s a security threat. Nice.

B. They aren’t vetted to the same degree, there’s no way they possibly could be, because there’s too much to review. Apple has limited resources, they cannot rigorously vet every app that could possibly be sideloaded.

C. You keep claiming that this new sideloading implementation doesn’t create a new security hole, yet you have absolutely no way of proving your claim.

D. You keep claiming it’s the same system as the enterprise software distribution system. A, just the fact that it isn’t labeled “enterprise software distribution” and doesn’t use the same distribution end tools makes it a different system. B. You have absolutely know way of knowing beyond the shadow of a doubt that they’re the exact same system with nothing different. You also cannot prove your claim that the software update only added user interface, settings, and GUI warnings. More unprovable claims.

E. It’s late, I’m tired, so we can either pick this up later, or agree to disagree.

 

[AppliedMicro]

So just dismiss it as fearmongering when cybersecurity experts who actually work in that industry say it’s a security threat.

It may be a threat as in (increased) “numbers and likelihood”.
But I don’t see reason or evidence opening up new “security holes” (as you said) - meaning technical vulnerabilities.

Because I don’t see (evidence or proof of) fundamental change technically to the iOS security model.

This distinction is important.
Because the choice of not using sideloading or alternative app stores remains the same as before.
If you don’t (or can’t) use it, you’re about as safe and secure as you used to be before.
The choice for a system that does not sideload remains.

They aren’t vetted to the same degree, there’s no way they possibly could be, because there’s too much to review. Apple has limited resources, they cannot rigorously vet every app that could possibly be sideloaded.

Why not? After all, they’re charging charging technology fee for the time being - more than they do for all the free to download apps in their own store.

Also, app reviewers for Apple reportedly spend mere minutes per app on review. It’s not as thorough as many believe,

 

[inuragon]

They have done so in recent history. Are you seriously going to try to tell me that the EU never placates the highest bidder today

No.
You claimed they do so it's your responsibility to prove it.

there are many experts who agree with my perspective of the proper scope of government authority.

To be clear an expert is someone who knows the topic, so has studied the historical impacts of government authority and it's results, so if you are talking about some random politicians then those are not necessarily experts.

 

[inuragon]

Apple has limited resources, they cannot rigorously vet every app that could possibly be sideloaded.

Ever look up how many apps get released on app store? they can't do that there either.

 

[Kal Madda]

It may be a threat as in (increased) “numbers and likelihood”.
But I don’t see reason or evidence opening up new “security holes” (as you said) - meaning technical vulnerabilities.

Because I don’t see (evidence or proof of) fundamental change technically to the iOS security model.

This distinction is important.
Because the choice of not using sideloading or alternative app stores remains the same as before.
If you don’t (or can’t) use it, you’re about as safe and secure as you used to be before.
The choice for a system that does not sideload remains.

Why not? After all, they’re charging charging technology fee for the time being - more than they do for all the free to download apps in their own store.

Also, app reviewers for Apple reportedly spend mere minutes per app on review. It’s not as thorough as many believe,

A. I believe that increased risk of being duped into installing malware is a security hole in the security model of iOS. You’re defining a “security hole” as some weakness in code. I’m looking at areas of the system that can easily be exploited by fraudsters. Before, average users didn’t really run the risk of being duped into installing fake versions of legit apps, because lots of iOS users knew that app sideloading wasn’t supported on iOS. But now, sideloading is supported, and a crafty fraudster can convince someone into thinking that the non-App Store version has extras, or is cheaper, and so then the consumer installs it, and has inadvertently installed malware onto their device. This couldn’t readily happen before. I think using the enterprise software distribution platform to distribute apps to non-employees would have been a big red flag for many people. It simply is not the same in the level of risk, and beyond that, there likely may be other backend weaknesses in the code that fraudsters could exploit. Remember, this is also different because before, webkit ensured certain security measures when it came to the browser engine and what it could access. But now combine other less-secure browser engines with sideloading, and there could be extra holes in security due to these other browser engines granting installers access to system resources that WebKit wouldn’t. We simply have never had this combination of changes and this particular implementation of app sideloading before, it’s impossible to be certain that it hasn’t opened up holes beyond what we even know about.

B. I consider opening iOS to less secure browser engines, and adding side loading to where average users will be more readily tricked into loading malware as a fundamental change that’s harmful to user security and trust in the platform.

C. It doesn’t, because, before, apps from the App Store weren’t allowed to require users to install companion apps or other apps from the internet. Now they are, and now users can be duped into installing malicious code without even knowing it. And how do you know beyond the shadow of a doubt what you are saying is true? How do you know you’re “about just as safe”? You can’t possibly prove that. And just the existence of easy to use side loading for average users itself makes the system less safe in my opinion. This also doesn’t account for when some mission critical app decides to not distribute through the secure App Store platform, but instead only install via sideloading. This is the security issue we face on desktops. Many apps aren’t available through the more secure App Store platform, so we’re forced to sideload software. The same could happen now with iOS, and then many won’t have the option to “just install apps from the App Store”.

D. Because their resources are still limited. They cannot possibly rigorously review the whole internet.

E. I very much doubt that. Apps often take weeks to be approved, and that isn’t because they spent two minutes in review…

 

[inuragon]

E. I very much doubt that. Apps often take weeks to be approved, and that isn’t because they spent two minutes in review…

Google says on average 1.123 apps get released on app store each day, there is no way to do thorough security review with that pace of apps.
Also weeks is not a long time when talking about big apps with thousands of lines of code.

 

[Kal Madda]

No.
You claimed they do so it's your responsibility to prove it.

To be clear an expert is someone who knows the topic, so has studied the historical impacts of government authority and it's results, so if you are talking about some random politicians then those are not necessarily experts.

A. Lobbying is still a booming business in the EU, so you’re going to be hard-pressed to make the argument they’re never currently placating the highest bidder. If they aren’t on anything, then why do lobbyists think lobbying will work for them?

B. There are several experts who agree with my view of limited government authority. And they’re not politicians…

 

[Kal Madda]

Ever look up how many apps get released on app store? they can't do that there either.

They can, because all of those apps aren’t hitting the App Store at once. They’re absorbed by the review process before they get to the App Store. So they have time to work through the list of apps for review, without those apps posing an active threat to users in the App Store. They cannot do that for the entire internet. Just because you see App C and App D released the same day or a day apart, doesn’t mean that App D only got a day worth of review time. It could just as easily mean that both were reviewed for several weeks, and one was either submitted a day later than the other, or had more that needed review. If Apple’s review process only reviewed one app at a time, we’d really be sunk…

 

[inuragon]

you’re going to be hard-pressed to make the argument they’re never currently placating the highest bidder.

That's why i didn't.
You made some arguments so it's on you to prove them.

There are several experts who agree with my view of limited government authority. And they’re not politicians…

Feel free to name them, or not, i don't really care