Slashdot Mirror
Inside Safari 3.2's Anti-Phishing Feature
MacWorld is running a piece from MacJournals.com's for-pay publication detailing how the Safari browser's anti-phishing works. The article takes Apple to task for not thinking enough of its users to bother telling them when Safari sends data off to a third party on their behalf. For it seems that Safari uses the same Google-based anti-phishing technology that Firefox has incorporated since version 2.0, but, unlike Mozilla, tells its users nothing about it. "Even when phrased as friendly to Apple as we can manage, the fact remains that after installing Safari 3.2, your computer is by default downloading lots of information from Google and sending information related to sites you visit back to Google — without telling you, without Apple disclosing the methods, and without any privacy statement from Apple."
In Apple's defense, they've never promised to do no evil. Their goal is to instill such unswerving devotion in their customer base that when they actually do some evil, it's here and gone in the news, and nothing has to change.
So far, so good.
Don't you EVER bad mouth Ferraro Rocher!
The google service is designed to minimize privacy leaks. It downloads a coarse-hashcheck database (so Google learns nothing). And then if something hits, it queries a detailed hash.
So unless you get a match on the coarse-hash database, Google learns NOTHING. And google only learns a hash if it matches, which is not very useful, AND google doesn't store this information unless it is a match with their detailed database.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Every time apple upgrades Safari, they disable my brilliant adblocker, Pithhelmet, and so I wait for the developer to hack it out again... Maybe I won't upgrade. Maybe my next mac will be running on mixed pc hardware. I'm strongly considering that...
Apple lawyers will issue a takedown deman to Macjournal.com and /. in 3... 2... 1...
Truth is only in what you can read now.
"The google service is designed to minimize privacy leaks. It downloads a coarse-hashcheck database (so Google learns nothing). And then if something hits, it queries a detailed hash."
The problem is the lack of disclosure.
I know Apple is based in the USA, with notoriously weak data protection laws, but over on this side of the pond distributing personally-identifiable information to a third party without explicit consent is a criminal offence. I wonder how close to the line this comes, or if it actually crosses it. I wasn't asked to agree to a new version of the EULA when I installed Safari 3.2 (I did it through the terminal, so maybe you are when you use the graphical update client?) and so I haven't even given implicit permission for Apple to tell Google about my browsing habits.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Even as a Mac fanboy I could care less. I want to use Safari, especially since Firefox is not the best on a Mac. However, no flashblock, no adblock -- no use. I'm reluctantly sticking with Firefox.
Antiphishing technology is of little to no value to me, flashblock and adblock are essential on the web. Steve, call me when Safari is web ready, without these tools it simply is not.
Apple is trying a new marketing strategy. They think that if they're as high-handed as microsoft they'll have a comparable market share
I do not have a sig. You are hallucinating.
Remember, the people who designed the Internet (incorrectly) assumed that all computers on the network would be trustworthy, so the rules are pretty loose.
C'mon, Macworld is better than this. Okay, the article is critically reviewing the anti-phishing feature, but the writer seems to have a bone to pick and in order to post an emotionally charged article, takes things one step too far.
The internet was intentionally designed, itself, not to have a centralized authorizing body for each and every PC and server on the planet. It's decentralized on purpose. When a so called journalist writes something like this, I have a problem, because to me it's just pandering to the security freaks. It's a bit off topic, but I also have a problem reading the rest of the article because it makes it hard to trust what the guy has to say. There's probably good facts in the article, and if there's a problem Apple should be criticized, but I can't possibly continue reading when I see something stupid like this.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Bad Apple. Shame on you. That said, Microsoft did the same thing with Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, and Windows Search. Firefox enabled it by default. Many, many companies auto-update and send information back to their servers without their users explicit permission -- and no, I don't think burying it in the EULA counts. Many applications have options to disable this, some don't. Many of us have software firewalls to block these kind of accesses -- It's sad when you need a firewall to keep legitimate software on your system from phoning home, but I know people do it.
Apple has an even bigger attitude than Microsoft of "Everything we do is to make the user's life easier." So they turn on anything that can be justified as "protecting" them or making their life easier. It's condescending, but most people aren't literate enough to notice or care so it's a business model that works. Barring some government regulation to put an end to this, which honestly won't happen, I don't see this pattern of thinking in our industry changing... If anything, I see it getting worse.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I had a look through my settings, in 2.0 IRCC there was an option to download the list instead of checking as you browse, as i cant find the option anymore I'm quite disappointed that Mozilla have effectively compromised my privacy OR left me undefended.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
A no less cynical, but more logical, view is that Aarogance does not breed success; rather, success breeds arrogance.
Just like Google itself, and Mozilla's bouncing baby bundle of joy, the Mozilla Corporation.
You've got it backwards. There is no longer an option to check as you browse and the check against the local list has always been the default.
I don't recall that option. Anyway, isn't it just a list of hashchecks? No personal info?
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
This is just the way Apple works. They present you, the user, with as little superfluous information or choice on the theory that it will just confuse and vex you. Of course that means you trust them to make the right (or most convenient) choices for you. And generally they do a better job of this than Microsoft does - MS just loves piling on stupid confusing features and then trying to be helpful while making matters even worse.
A lot of you seem to love Apple just because they have awesome industrial design for the most part and so using one means you're not one of the boring Masses, and because of that you think that somehow they should be not evil and have the most cool kid options. It's not like that. They don't give a damn about right or wrong, just moving product, and the way they make their money is by ignoring pain in the ass users like us who want lots of marginal features, so everyone else can feel warm and fuzzy and unconfused.
So getting back to this, would telling my mother about the phishing thing and saying 'blah blah we are contacting central servers to update hash signatures so we can detect browser hijacking attempts' confuse and worry her? Yes it would. Nor would she care. So they don't bother.
Just use Firefox and be done with it, while all browsers have their faults (and features) Safari offers nothing unique (IMO) and Firefox most likely has a bigger team of coders behind it.
I use Firefox on Ubuntu, XP, and OS X Leopard so I have continuity/usability across the board, and that is what sells me on open source.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Our AdRater plug-in has similar privacy issues. It's a plug-in that "phones home" to get information about the advertisers whose ads appear on a site. Here's what we tell users:
AdRater "phones home", but tells us as little as possible. AdRater sends the domain name associated with each advertisement you see to SiteTruth. Thus, we can tell what advertisers have reached you, but cannot tell what web pages you have been viewing. We can't tell if you click on an ad. AdRater does not use "cookies" or any other user identifiable information other than your current IP address.
If we change any of this, the changes will not take effect until you download and install a new version of AdRater.
AdRater does not rate ads on secure pages, so no information about a secure page is ever sent to our servers.
Now that wasn't hard, was it?
For really technical users, we publish the API AdRater uses, so you can check to see that we're telling the truth about what data goes back and forth.
Safari crashes on me every time I try it.
By that logic, Apple software should come with no EULAs or Terms of Use as well. Far more people would read (and comprehend!) a dialog message informing them about phishing security than the 10,000+ word EULAs that many Apple applications come with.
Which hindrance of the two do you think is more useful and has better usability? It's pretty obvious that this omission has absolutely nothing to do with usability.
The memory management on the PowerPC can be used to frighten small children. -Linus
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm
It's simple. Just unplug your comp...
NO CARRIER
I wonder why.
A lot of you seem to love Apple
I use Safari because it's well integrated with OS X. Firefox isn't, and Camino (which I use by preference) has a couple of bugs that are supposed to be fixed Real Soon Now that make it lock up behind a proxy and don't let me disable Apple's stupid insecurity dialogs.
I also use Safari and Camino because they don't use XUL the way Firefox does. I don't trust the security model for XUL nor the technique Firefox uses for the XUL installer, XPI. And in fact there's been at least one XPI-related vulnerability (quickly patched, but it shows that the class of problems I'm concerned about are real).
This doesn't mean I love Apple, or that I think the folks on the Camino team are cooler than the ones on the Mozilla team. This just means I'm more interested in the best tool for the job than where it comes from.
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment and point out that such disclosure is getting harder and harder to comply with.
"Attention: By default, Safari now downloads a database from Google and connects back to Google to verify whether sites you visit in your browser are rated as malicious by Google. If you would like to opt out of this feature, uncheck this box: [x] Use Google's malicious site checking service."
Just banged out a draft version for ya. Took me all of about 1 minute, and I don't even have a PhD.
The problem isn't complexity or difficulty.
Please help metamoderate.
The article takes Apple to task for not thinking enough of its users to bother telling them when Safari sends data off to a third party on their behalf.
I don't really want to be bugged every 5 seconds that my computer is doing something on my behalf. Those sort of "features" are what I dislike about the Windows operating environment. Maybe it is just me, but there is a definite sweet spot for the trade-offs of security versus convenience. To say what you said in a more positive tone would be that Apple seems to lean towards convenience.
That wasnt technical? Cookies? IP Address? Secure pages? Haha.. man go do some usability studies. This is probably the worst 'non technical' dialog I've ever seen.
"pain in the ass users like us who want lots of marginal features"
If only someone could make that viral....
I fail to see how this is a big deal. Did you read the article? If so, you would not panic as well.
First of all, everything is transported in hashes. You do not compare the actual URLs that customers visit, only the hashes. Google has no actual links that indicate the banks that you use and the pr0n sites you have browsed. Only hashes.
Also, this is a configurable option. Apple does not force you to use Google. Apple does not force you to use this feature. I think it would be easier if Apple has explained this feature in the release notes to a greater extent and if users had to accept some sort of a license agreement when enabling this feature. Nothing else beyond it.
It was defiantly in [ Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.17) Gecko/20080829 Firefox/2.0.0.17 ] either check against a downloaded list or ask google about each one.
Submitting the hash of every site you visit makes it very easy for google to see if you have or haven't visited a site. all the hashing stops is google having a list of sites youve been to, but a rainbow table means they can instantly see everybody that has been to www.slashdot.org. It depends if it is now done by list or by actively checking (asa clarifies above that the default is using a list which allows me to maintain privacy )
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
It does, however, present it in a non-technical way first:
AdRater "phones home", but tells us as little as possible.
For many users, that says it all.
AdRater sends the domain name associated with each advertisement you see to SiteTruth.
A domain name is pretty common knowledge. Even if it isn't, now you know some information is going to something called SiteTruth.
Thus, we can tell what advertisers have reached you, but cannot tell what web pages you have been viewing. We can't tell if you click on an ad.
Again, non-technical.
It seems like a non-technical user could read this and understand enough to decide whether or not they need to care -- and if they need to care, they can ask for help understanding it. Us technical users are grateful that all the relevant information about IP addresses, domain names, and cookies are all right there, so we don't have to go digging for clues as to what the "non-technical" marketspeak might mean.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
So, a single popup the first time, giving you the option to either allow it or turn it off, and also the option (checked by default) to not see that dialog anymore.
But this isn't even in the EULA.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
the 10,000+ word EULAs that many Apple applications come with.
[Citation needed]
The longest Apple SLA I've seen is less than 2500 words/five pages long.
My experience is that "on a Mac" Safari is faster, sure isn't on Windows.
*MY* experience is that, in Windows, Safari is faster than both Firefox 2.x and 3.x. Faster to start up, faster to render, faster to display coherent screen data, faster to run javascript, and faster to perform useful shortcuts via the keyboard (like auto-fill forms or restore the browser to an empty state).
I do not own a Mac, and can't tell you about how Safari works on one. But in Windows, Safari is the browser I use the most, by choice. K-Meleon and Chrome follow, with Firefox trailing the pack, though I use all of these every day. And yes, I have tuned all of them to the extent that they can be tuned, including all hidden about:config nonsense in the Gecko browsers. I only use FF as my bookmark manager, out of familiarity and habit borne of being an old Netscape Navigator holdout dating back to 1.x.
Posted from K-Meleon.
In a stock installation of Firefox 2.0 and higher, Ctrl-K. Type a letter, any letter, *without* hitting Enter. You have now sent information to Google and any would-be MITM, all so that Google could recommend "amazon" for "a," all sent in glorious clear plaintext.
Now imagine that you had sensitive text information in your clipboard and it found its way into the search box purely by accident. Oh, to be the man in the middle of that.
Just because it's the search box instead of the *hash* of a URL to which you are actively trying to connect doesn't make a lick of difference. In fact, I'd say that the search box, until you hit enter, should be neutral territory, safe from the network. At least with the address bar and hitting enter, or clicking a link, you are consciously interacting with "something" on the net. At least anti-phishing features are implemented in the name of security, while this bullshit is perpetrated in the name of laziness and/or convenience. (I'll refrain from overemphasizing the potential for exploitation of these results and their prioritization through monetary influence.) So where are all the people jumping up and down about Mozilla being evil and tailor-made for producing dumb products for dumb customers? Are their needs simply satisfied by the fact that suggestions can be turned off using FF's HIDDEN config panel? If so, then aren't the needs of Safari's detractors met by the disabling of this feature in Safari's UNHIDDEN config panel?
Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it? Unless you're the rabid, irrational hate-Apple-at-all-costs type.
to repeat what i said on the macworld article's comment board,
sudo dscl localhost -create /Local/Default/Hosts/safebrowsing.clients.google.com IPAddress 127.0.0.1
(or do the obvious with /etc/hosts if you're still running tiger (not that i know if safari 3.2 is available for tiger....))
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
And it comes in a new kind of package file (well, new to me), in "xar!" format. XAR is a new archive format, with an annoying command line.
To see what's in the package if you want to see what Apple's doing before you let them do it:
In other words, the usual .pkg file, just stored in a gratuitous new archive format. Explanation for "why do we need yet another archive format" in the project's source. At least they're open-sourceing their new format instead of making everyone reverse-engineer it like <include src=usualsuspects> would.
To make file(1) know about this:
Apple needs to do this already. Sheesh.
.. noscript is the only way to browse.. it's the biggest reason for me using firefox exclusively, on both my windows and mac machines.
If Apple had actually done things differently, it would've only been for further annoyance of their users.
Another curious issue is all Apple discussions having the same color as eg. immigration or drugs discussions. Say anything positive of the two latter and you're either a racist/fascist or a junkie. Now merely an Apple lover - which arguably could mean being both a facist AND a junkie.. but that's besides the point.