[Flockster]

> However, iOS has a different situation. Due to Apple's App Store and sandboxing policies, other browser apps are forced to use Safari's JavaScript engine. That is, Chrome, Firefox and Edge on iOS are simply wrappers on top of Safari that provide auxiliary features such as synchronizing bookmarks and settings. Consequently, nearly every browser application listed on the App Store is vulnerable to iLeakage.

This should be a reason to lift this policy and allow different engines on these devices!

[frizlab]

Because increasing the attack surface would somehow increase the security?

[robocat]

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.

[HideousKojima]

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.

[walterbell]

Brave on iOS can disable Javascript on all web pages except those you trust by opt-in.

[jmull]

They should allow different engines, but this isn't a reason. Different browsers have different vulnerabilities, but aren't substantially more secure as far as I'm aware.

[fsflover]

But it's for your security! Not joking: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21587191

[paulmd]

unironically, having three browser engines is three times the attack surface, what's the problem with that claim?

uarch "multiculture" hasn't saved us from architectural attacks, actually it probably increases the total number of vulnerabilities, and browser multiculture won't magically make them all perfectly secure and perfectly implemented either. if each browser is only 99% secure now you have 0.99^3 total security, you have ~tripled your odds of a vulnerability existing in at least one of your apps at a given time.

there are other arguments in favor of sideloading, but, I don't really see how multiple browsers is a security improvement, actually it seems unironically much worse on that front, since now you are depending on three teams of engineers (two of which are not even at your company) to execute perfectly and never have a vulnerability, in what is one of the highest-privilege applications (essentially the canonical "full control" app). People want their browser to have access to location info (thus bluetooth/wifi settings), camera, camera roll (thus long-term location history), microphone, everything. The fewer applications that exist like that the better you are.

I can't fathom anyone saying that they should, for example, run three different high-privilege pieces of software in their production systems, when one would do fine - f.ex you wouldn't run nginx, apache, and keycloak all mixed into your environments. That would obviously inflate the risk of being subject to at least one attack. Why is the browser different?

[HatchedLake721]

What next? iOS security vulnerability? This should be a reason to lift this policy and allow different operating systems on these devices! /s

[smoldesu]

If Europe's governments weren't so reliant on Apple's surveillance, maybe their regulators would demand that.