It's funny , for years Apple were all like "Macs can't get viruses!" now they're saying "we need app store lock in too prevent malware!".
I guess there's a distinction to be made between actual malware and software that co-installs crap (Ask toolbar etc) but often end users do not see that difference.
Besides, if something has passed app store verification then surely Apple are happy that it is not malware? Therefor they can be somewhat more lenient with sandboxing restrictions?
>Besides, if something has passed app store verification then surely Apple are happy that it is not malware?
I'm not so sure. What is their process for verifying that an app is not or does not contain malware? If it's simply to run the software and see what it does then they can really only verify that apps aren't immediately misbehaving. What if the app is set to do its misdeeds after the 100th time it is run, or after being installed for a month? There is really only so much a reviewer can do in order to push an app out within a reasonable time frame.
Sandboxing in a way is just as much protection from liability for Apple as it is protection from malware for its users.
>Besides, if something has passed app store verification then surely Apple are happy that it is not malware? Therefor they can be somewhat more lenient with sandboxing restrictions?
It's about minimizing the attack vectors. Sure, Acrobat, for example, is not malware and could be sold in the App Store. But there are tons of viruses and malware that targets holes in Acrobat. If Acrobat was also sandboxed, they could not do much harm.
>It's funny , for years Apple were all like "Macs can't get viruses!" now they're saying "we need app store lock in too prevent malware!".
Yeah, it's funny because:
1) Apple never said that explicitly.
2) It was (and still is true), i.e not that Macs could not technically get viruses, but that they had got no viruses, with the exception of some lame trojans. In all, a minuscule number of OS X Macs were ever affected by anything in the last 12 years, and even those clicked and installed it themselves.
3) All other naysayers, ignoring the practical lack of any real viruses on the platform, pushed for more protection and security measures.
Yes, they did. "Macs are safe and don't get PC viruses" to an expert means "it is possible that attack vectors still exist", but to the general public means "no viruses".
The very next sentence was "a Mac isn’t susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers".
Which it wasn't.
As for custom viruses targeting OS X, none had been seen in the wild for a decade (only some trojans did exist). So the general public's assumptions "Macs are safe" was grounded in pragmatic reality.
That something is theoretically possible (e.g a meteor hitting my house) doesn't make it a real threat.
Now, one could argue that an OS X virus is not only theoretically possible but, unlike the meteor example, also easily achievable.
But still, something being both theoretically possible and easily achievable doesn't make it a real threat.
E.g a neighbour setting my house on fire. I'd rather start worrying about it when it starts happening frequently (instead of never).
I guess there's a distinction to be made between actual malware and software that co-installs crap (Ask toolbar etc) but often end users do not see that difference.
Besides, if something has passed app store verification then surely Apple are happy that it is not malware? Therefor they can be somewhat more lenient with sandboxing restrictions?