Stories with Tag app permissions

• Can you trust that permission pop-up on macOS?

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-05-12 18:26:44

  Verbose tl;dr

  macOS's Transparency, Consent, and Control (TCC) pop-ups, designed to protect user privacy by requesting permission for apps to access sensitive data, can be manipulated by malicious actors. While generally reliable, TCC relies on the accuracy of the app's declared bundle identifier, which can be spoofed. A malicious app could impersonate a legitimate one, tricking the user into granting it access to protected data like the camera, microphone, or even full disk access. This vulnerability highlights the importance of careful examination of TCC prompts, including checking the app's name and developer information against known legitimate sources before granting access. Even with TCC, users must remain vigilant to avoid inadvertently granting permissions to disguised malware.

  The blog post "Can you trust that permission pop-up on macOS?" delves into the intricacies of the Transparency, Consent, and Control (TCC) framework in macOS, which governs how applications access sensitive resources like the camera, microphone, location, and files. The author argues that while TCC presents a seemingly straightforward interface for user consent, the underlying mechanisms are complex and can be manipulated, leading to potential security and privacy risks.

  The core issue revolves around the concept of TCC databases. These databases store the granted permissions for each application. Crucially, these databases are not solely controlled by the system. Applications themselves, using the TCC API, can programmatically add entries to their own databases, essentially granting themselves permissions without explicit user interaction through the familiar pop-up dialog. This self-granted permission isn't absolute; it's limited to the specific application making the request and doesn't extend system-wide. However, it allows an application to bypass the standard user authorization flow, potentially raising concerns if a malicious actor gains control of a legitimate application.

  The post further explains that the reliance on application bundles plays a role in this dynamic. Because permissions are tied to the bundle identifier, a malicious actor modifying an application's bundle can potentially inherit pre-existing permissions granted to the original, legitimate application. This can be particularly problematic if an application's update mechanism is compromised, allowing a malicious update to assume existing permissions without prompting the user.

  The author emphasizes that this isn't necessarily a "vulnerability" in the traditional sense, but rather a design characteristic of TCC that can be exploited. The flexibility afforded to applications for managing their own permissions can be beneficial in legitimate use cases, streamlining certain workflows. However, this same flexibility creates an attack surface that can be leveraged for malicious purposes. The post concludes by highlighting the need for users to be vigilant about the applications they install and run, especially from untrusted sources, given the potential for bypassing the standard permission prompts. The inherent trust placed in application bundles and the potential for their manipulation underscores the importance of secure software distribution and update mechanisms to mitigate the risks associated with TCC's design.

  • macOS
  • privacy
  • Security
  • Permissions
  • Transparency, Consent, and Control (TCC)
  • app permissions
  • Pop-up windows
  • User Interface (UI)
  • Operating Systems
  • Apple

  Summary of Comments ( 225 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43966089

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss the trustworthiness of macOS permission pop-ups, sparked by an article about TinyCheck. Several commenters express concern about TCC's complexity and potential for abuse, highlighting how easily users can be tricked into granting excessive permissions. One commenter questions if Apple's security theater is sufficient, given the potential for malware to exploit these vulnerabilities. Others discuss TinyCheck's usefulness, potential improvements, and alternatives, including using tccutil and other open-source tools. Some debate the practical implications of such vulnerabilities and the likelihood of average users encountering sophisticated attacks. A few express skepticism about the overall threat, arguing that the complexity of exploiting TCC may deter most malicious actors.

  The Hacker News post "Can you trust that permission pop-up on macOS?" (linking to an article about TCC, the Transparency, Consent, and Control framework in macOS) generated a moderate amount of discussion with several insightful comments.

  Several users discussed the complexities and nuances of TCC. One user highlighted the "security vs. usability" trade-off inherent in such systems, pointing out that while TCC is designed for security, it can lead to frustrating user experiences, especially for power users or those working with complex setups. This prompted further discussion about how Apple could potentially improve the user experience without compromising security, with suggestions like more granular permissions or better explanations of why certain permissions are required.

  Another commenter brought up the issue of "TCC bypasses," explaining how some applications have found ways to circumvent the TCC framework, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the system in truly protecting user privacy. They also mentioned the "cat-and-mouse game" between Apple and developers seeking to bypass these restrictions.

  The topic of sandboxing apps also emerged. A commenter explained how sandboxing, combined with TCC, forms a layered defense mechanism. They noted that even if an app manages to bypass TCC, the sandbox can still restrict its access to sensitive data and system resources. Another commenter elaborated on the concept of "entitlements," which grant specific privileges to sandboxed apps. This led to a discussion about the potential risks associated with overly permissive entitlements.

  One user shared a personal anecdote about a frustrating experience with TCC, where they had difficulty granting an app the necessary permissions to access files on an external drive. This highlighted the practical challenges users can face with TCC in real-world scenarios.

  A few comments touched on the differences between TCC and similar permission systems on other operating systems, with some suggesting that Apple's approach is generally more robust.

  Finally, there was a brief discussion about the technical details of TCC, including how it uses a database to store permission grants and how this database can be inspected by users.

  Overall, the comments section provides valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of TCC, highlighting the ongoing tension between security and usability, and offering various perspectives on how the system could be improved. While no single comment is overwhelmingly compelling on its own, the collection of comments paints a comprehensive picture of the complexities and challenges associated with managing permissions in a modern operating system.

• Everyone knows all the apps on your phone

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-29 21:26:32

  Verbose tl;dr

  The post "Everyone knows all the apps on your phone" argues that the extensive data collection practices of mobile advertising networks effectively reveal which apps individuals use, even without explicit permission. Through deterministic and probabilistic methods linking device IDs, IP addresses, and other signals, these networks can create detailed profiles of app usage across devices. This information is then packaged and sold to advertisers, data brokers, and even governments, allowing them to infer sensitive information about users, from their political affiliations and health concerns to their financial status and personal relationships. The post emphasizes the illusion of privacy in the mobile ecosystem, suggesting that the current opt-out model is inadequate and calls for a more robust approach to data protection.

  The author, Bee, posits that the perceived privacy surrounding the applications installed on one's smartphone is largely illusory. While individuals may believe that the specific collection of apps they utilize is a personal and concealed detail, Bee argues that this information is, in actuality, readily discernible, or at least highly inferable, by a surprisingly large number of people. This apparent paradox arises from several converging factors.

  Firstly, Bee elucidates the pervasive nature of data collection and sharing within the mobile application ecosystem. Applications frequently request and obtain permissions to access a user's contacts, location, and other sensitive data. This data, often aggregated and anonymized (or pseudonymized), is then shared with advertising networks and data brokers. Consequently, even without explicitly divulging which apps one uses, the digital footprints left behind paint a remarkably accurate picture for these third-party entities.

  Secondly, Bee highlights the power of contextual clues and social observation. Conversations, both online and offline, inadvertently reveal information about the apps an individual uses. A casual mention of using a specific feature, a notification that appears on the screen during a social interaction, or even the simple act of pulling out a phone to perform a specific task can provide observant individuals with clues as to the apps in use. Over time, these seemingly insignificant pieces of information coalesce to form a comprehensive understanding of an individual's app usage.

  Furthermore, the author emphasizes the influence of social circles and shared interests. People tend to gravitate towards similar apps as their friends and colleagues. Recommendations, shared experiences, and the desire to participate in group activities within specific app ecosystems contribute to a degree of homogeneity in app usage within social groups. Therefore, knowing the apps used by one individual can often provide a reasonable basis for inferring the apps used by others within their social network.

  Finally, Bee touches upon the prevalence of default apps and pre-installed software. Many smartphones come pre-loaded with a suite of applications that are widely used. While users have the option to remove or replace these, a significant portion of the population retains and utilizes them, making it statistically likely that any given individual has at least some of these common apps installed.

  In conclusion, Bee contends that the notion of app usage being a closely guarded secret is a misconception. Through a combination of data collection practices, social observation, shared interests, and the prevalence of common applications, the apps on one's phone are, to a significant extent, knowable by others, whether they be data aggregators, close acquaintances, or even casual observers. This challenges the assumption of privacy surrounding app usage and underscores the pervasiveness of data leakage in the modern digital landscape.

  • privacy
  • Mobile Apps
  • Data Collection
  • surveillance
  • tracking
  • digital footprint
  • app permissions
  • Data Privacy
  • smartphone security
  • User Data
  • online privacy
  • Mobile Security
  • data mining
  • big data
  • Analytics

  Summary of Comments ( 392 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43518866

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed the privacy implications of app usage data being readily available to mobile carriers and how this data can be used for targeted advertising and even more nefarious purposes. Some commenters highlighted the ease with which this data can be accessed, not just by corporations but also by individuals with basic technical skills. The discussion also touched upon the ineffectiveness of current privacy regulations and the lack of real control users have over their data. A few users pointed out the potential for this data to reveal sensitive information like health conditions or financial status based on app usage patterns. Several commenters expressed a sense of resignation and apathy, suggesting the fight for data privacy is already lost, while others advocated for stronger regulations and user control over data sharing.

  The Hacker News post "Everyone knows all the apps on your phone" (linking to a Substack article about app usage data collection) generated a lively discussion with several compelling comments.

  Many commenters discussed the technical mechanisms behind this data collection, pointing out that it goes beyond simply tracking app store downloads. Several highlighted the role of "device graphs," which link together various devices and online identities belonging to the same individual through sophisticated cross-referencing of information like IP addresses, advertising identifiers, and shared accounts. This allows companies to build a comprehensive picture of a user's app usage even across different devices. Some elaborated on how this data is packaged and sold, emphasizing the scale and pervasiveness of this practice.

  A recurring theme was the lack of genuine informed consent. Commenters argued that the current opt-out mechanisms are often buried in complex privacy policies or presented in a way that discourages users from exercising their choices. Some expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of privacy-focused operating systems or VPNs in fully mitigating this tracking, given the sophisticated techniques employed by data brokers.

  Several commenters discussed the implications of this data collection, ranging from targeted advertising to potential misuse by governments or malicious actors. Some raised concerns about the chilling effect this surveillance could have on freedom of expression and association. The potential for discrimination based on inferred characteristics from app usage was also mentioned.

  A few commenters offered practical advice on mitigating this tracking, such as regularly clearing advertising identifiers and being selective about the permissions granted to apps. However, there was a general consensus that individual efforts are insufficient and that stronger regulatory measures are needed to address the systemic nature of this data collection.

  Some of the more compelling comments included specific examples of how this data is used, anecdotes about unexpected data linkages, and technical deep dives into the methods employed by data brokers. The discussion also touched upon the ethical implications of this practice and the broader societal consequences of widespread digital surveillance. While some comments offered a resigned acceptance of this reality, others expressed a desire for greater transparency and control over personal data.