▲ 158 ▼ Apple will update Macs to protect users from AI agents with full disk access (mashable.com) submitted 7 hours ago by TryingToBeGood@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world 30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] finley@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 hours ago (9 children) So, you didn’t read the article permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 14 points 6 hours ago (3 children) I read the article, and I think DickHertz's comment is pretty much right. The article's example illustrates the point: For example, Inc. columnist Jason Aten recently discovered that Meta's Muse AI assistant somehow had synced his entire local Messages database and was using those messages as context for its tasks. Aten did not understand that the Messages database is stored on the disk (presumably) unencrypted and readable by anything with full disk access. He got a result he didn't want because he did not understand the implications of granting that permission, and Apple seeks to add more friction to the process to protect users from making that mistake. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago I think his point was that apple would abuse it, like they are already doing. Good thing if implemented properly, bad thing if implemented the apple way. permalink fedilink source parent [–] 4am@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 hours ago (1 child) Even if it was encrypted, it could be unlocked because with full disk access it can read the local private key, which probably doesn’t need a passphrase because it’s be a pain in the ass for the user to retype that every reboot or more Starting to see why you shouldn’t let any corporate AI loose on your daily driver yet? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 52 minutes ago Macs have a hardware secure enclave that apps can use to store keys where other apps can't access them. Apple itself does not seem to be making adequate use of it here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DickHertz@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago (4 children) Yeah, I read it. That’s kind of the point. Apple’s adding more guardrails because people will click Allow on damn near anything without thinking about what they’re actually giving access to. 🙄 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 1 point 3 hours ago It’s also because Apple’s permissions are hilariously monolithic. A lot of their permissions are set up as an all-or-nothing event, instead of allowing granular control. Full disc access is a great example, where a user should be able to grant access to specific folders and files on an as-needed basis. But that’s not the default behavior. The default behavior is to just go “hey do you wanna give this app access to everything? permalink fedilink source parent [–] plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 hours ago (2 children) Or an update adds it without your knowledge… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 1 point 3 hours ago Apps can’t add permissions via an update. If an app adds a new feature with an update that requires a new permission, the user will be prompted the first time the app tries to use that new feature. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DickHertz@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think an app could give itself Full Disk Access without the user explicitly approving it, even during an update. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 14 points 6 hours ago (3 children) I read the article, and I think DickHertz's comment is pretty much right. The article's example illustrates the point: For example, Inc. columnist Jason Aten recently discovered that Meta's Muse AI assistant somehow had synced his entire local Messages database and was using those messages as context for its tasks. Aten did not understand that the Messages database is stored on the disk (presumably) unencrypted and readable by anything with full disk access. He got a result he didn't want because he did not understand the implications of granting that permission, and Apple seeks to add more friction to the process to protect users from making that mistake. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago I think his point was that apple would abuse it, like they are already doing. Good thing if implemented properly, bad thing if implemented the apple way. permalink fedilink source parent [–] 4am@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 hours ago (1 child) Even if it was encrypted, it could be unlocked because with full disk access it can read the local private key, which probably doesn’t need a passphrase because it’s be a pain in the ass for the user to retype that every reboot or more Starting to see why you shouldn’t let any corporate AI loose on your daily driver yet? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 52 minutes ago Macs have a hardware secure enclave that apps can use to store keys where other apps can't access them. Apple itself does not seem to be making adequate use of it here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago I think his point was that apple would abuse it, like they are already doing. Good thing if implemented properly, bad thing if implemented the apple way. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 hours ago (1 child) Even if it was encrypted, it could be unlocked because with full disk access it can read the local private key, which probably doesn’t need a passphrase because it’s be a pain in the ass for the user to retype that every reboot or more Starting to see why you shouldn’t let any corporate AI loose on your daily driver yet? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 52 minutes ago Macs have a hardware secure enclave that apps can use to store keys where other apps can't access them. Apple itself does not seem to be making adequate use of it here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 point 52 minutes ago Macs have a hardware secure enclave that apps can use to store keys where other apps can't access them. Apple itself does not seem to be making adequate use of it here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DickHertz@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago (4 children) Yeah, I read it. That’s kind of the point. Apple’s adding more guardrails because people will click Allow on damn near anything without thinking about what they’re actually giving access to. 🙄 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 1 point 3 hours ago It’s also because Apple’s permissions are hilariously monolithic. A lot of their permissions are set up as an all-or-nothing event, instead of allowing granular control. Full disc access is a great example, where a user should be able to grant access to specific folders and files on an as-needed basis. But that’s not the default behavior. The default behavior is to just go “hey do you wanna give this app access to everything? permalink fedilink source parent [–] plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 hours ago (2 children) Or an update adds it without your knowledge… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 1 point 3 hours ago Apps can’t add permissions via an update. If an app adds a new feature with an update that requires a new permission, the user will be prompted the first time the app tries to use that new feature. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DickHertz@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think an app could give itself Full Disk Access without the user explicitly approving it, even during an update. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 1 point 3 hours ago It’s also because Apple’s permissions are hilariously monolithic. A lot of their permissions are set up as an all-or-nothing event, instead of allowing granular control. Full disc access is a great example, where a user should be able to grant access to specific folders and files on an as-needed basis. But that’s not the default behavior. The default behavior is to just go “hey do you wanna give this app access to everything? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 hours ago (2 children) Or an update adds it without your knowledge… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 1 point 3 hours ago Apps can’t add permissions via an update. If an app adds a new feature with an update that requires a new permission, the user will be prompted the first time the app tries to use that new feature. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DickHertz@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think an app could give itself Full Disk Access without the user explicitly approving it, even during an update. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 1 point 3 hours ago Apps can’t add permissions via an update. If an app adds a new feature with an update that requires a new permission, the user will be prompted the first time the app tries to use that new feature. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DickHertz@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think an app could give itself Full Disk Access without the user explicitly approving it, even during an update. permalink fedilink source parent