Apple made it very clear that their security concerns related to third party browsing engines are about difficult-to-contain threats posed by JIT compilation. (JITs require non-text memory pages to be executable.) Apple doesn’t allow other apps to use such technology, so they’re consistent in that respect.

Apple even disables JIT for Safari itself when you put an iPhone in lockdown mode, at no small cost to performance, in an effort to harden the device even more.

Do you have a rebuttal to that?

▲

concinds 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes. Safari is a less secure browser than Chrome, architecturally. Took far longer to ship sandboxing. Still hasn't fixed SLAP and FLOP. Still hasn't shipped proper site isolation. Takes far longer to fix reported vulnerabilities, and consistently "fixes" them superficially and incorrectly, requiring another fix.

Enough with the Apple fanboy paternalism. They don't need absolute control "for users' sake". They're not entitled to it.

▲

otterley 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Still hasn't fixed SLAP and FLOP. Still hasn't shipped proper site isolation.

Those are interesting facts, but are ultimately a red herring. How will enabling JIT for other browser engines, absent the detailed vetting Apple is requiring to provide a Web Browser Engine entitlement, yield a more secure outcome?

> Enough with the Apple fanboy paternalism. They don't need absolute control "for users' sake". They're not entitled to it.

You are, of course, welcome to choose an alternative. If you prefer Android, by all means, use it!

▲

concinds 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The "vetting" is irrelevant because the other engines will continue to not exist. By design.

I am currently forced to use a less secure browser due to Apple's restrictions, which invalidates your original claim. Your skillful dodging of that point is why it's so frustrating to have any conversation about Apple. There really are cult-like aspects.

	▲	otterley 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What “less secure” browser are you “forced” to use? And why?