Because increasing the attack surface would somehow increase the security?
back
2 comments
You have a laptop with a browser. You buy a laptop with a more secure browser. You have increased attack surface yet security is improved.
It is quite possible a native Chrome on iOS would be more secure.
Absolutely not. You now have a computer where you have chromium’s flaws for your daily internet browsing and Safari(or whatever native browser is on the OS)’s flaws for the native apps that use the native browser.
Yes indeed, you’re still free not to use these apps. But would you? At some point why not get a computer where the internet is the “OS” (a chromebook for instance……… where guess what? you cannot use an alternate rendering engine. Interesting, no?)
Technically you can run an alternative browser on ChromeOS under the form of an Android app, or by running a different one in the Linux sandbox.
In exchange for decreasing the amount of affected users and application? Absolutely. No one would be forced to use a non-Safari browser.
A software monoculture means that a bug for one is a bug for all.
But you’d also get apps that decide to use chromium for whatever reason outside of the user’s control, thus making these users vulnerable to chromium flaws…
In short, you increase the possibilities, you increase the attack vectors. There is no way around it AFAIK.
>outside of the user’s control
Using the app at all is in the user's control. The current state of iOS is that they don't have any control whatsoever.
Here’s an example: I know I have the control of not using youtube because I really dislike gougle. Would any of my family member? Absolutely not. Would they use their browser if they could in the youtube app? Most definitely yes.
So no, it is most definitely not in the user’s control.
> Would they use their browser if they could in the youtube app? Most definitely yes.
> So no, it is most definitely not in the user’s control.
You're comparing impulse control to hard runtime limitations. It doesn't really track; I understand your apprehension, but if none of your family members notice or care then maybe Google's hypothetical solution here worked? If that's an undesirable outcome for you, I think you should be lobbying for better alternatives instead of using it as a boogeyman to excuse iron-grip ecosystems. Two wrongs aren't going to make a right here.
> Using the app at all is in the user's control.
Not if it is mandated by work, home, family, government, etc.
If it's mandated then they never had the control there to begin with.
> A software monoculture means that a bug for one is a bug for all.
That's true, but the situation is not improved by a Chromium/Blink monoculture. It's the same problem with a slightly different flavor.
So yes, iOS should be opened to third party engines, but at the same time steps should be taken to stymy Chromium's dominance.