7 ms·
Yup. When I updated my company's secure development requirements, and compared them to others, I was confronted with a lot of choices that would increase securi
by hackermatic 3y ago
Yup. When I updated my company's secure development requirements, and compared them to others, I was confronted with a lot of choices that would increase security somewhat, but at the expense of user control of their own devices, like refusing to function if the device was jailbroken, or requiring the use of the system keyboard only (which is also an accessibility problem).
These are tempting choices, but they go a lot further than, for example, requiring only modern TLS ciphersuites to be used to communicate with my servers. They dictate the state of your entire device, and no one app or company should have that power, unless you work for the company and they issue you the device -- but even then, modern MDM/MAM can and should sandbox company apps from the rest of the device.
- a_t48 3y agoWhen I worked on iOS games, I ended up having to ban all jailbroken devices. I didn’t like doing it, but basically - every cheater we found was using a jailbroken phone, the number of non cheaters with jailbroken phones was tiny, and it would have basically taken up all my time to deal with cheaters rather than implement fun features. I’d have just ignored them if it wasn’t for the fact that they made the leaderboards look really fake.
- _silicon 3y ago“I didn’t like doing it” doesn’t make this any better. It’s just hammering another nail in the coffin of device ownership.
- a_t48 3y agoPlease, our mediocre AA gatcha game did nothing to you nor the overall jailbreaking ecosystem. Don’t you think that’s being a bit dramatic?
- TheHappyOddish 3y agoThey definitely overdramatised the wording, but their point is valid - the 'normalisation by a thousand cuts' is a real phenomenom, and a bad one.
- a_t48 3y agoI'll agree with that, but on my side I wasn't faced with a whole lot of options either.