From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

The Apple religious fundamentalists apparently never read the news.
They endlessly claim things even Apple wouldn't dare to claim.
Why?

Do they never read the news?

They even deny that bugs, which are widely reported, are in the Apple
products (such as the recent vast CocoPods vulnerabilities).

What's wrong with these Apple religious fundamentalists?

Is everyone as ignorant as they are?
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

The Apple religious fundamentalists apparently never read the news.
They endlessly claim things even Apple wouldn't dare to claim.
Why?

Do they never read the news?

They even deny that bugs, which are widely reported, are in the Apple products (such as the recent vast CocoPods vulnerabilities).

What's wrong with these Apple religious fundamentalists?

Is everyone as ignorant as they are?

Blind faith.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-04 09:00, badgolferman wrote:

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

The Apple religious fundamentalists apparently never read the news.
They endlessly claim things even Apple wouldn't dare to claim.
Why?

Do they never read the news?

They even deny that bugs, which are widely reported, are in the Apple
products (such as the recent vast CocoPods vulnerabilities).

What's wrong with these Apple religious fundamentalists?

Is everyone as ignorant as they are?

Blind faith.

I don't have "faith" about computers and technology.

I have experience.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-04, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-04 09:00, badgolferman wrote:

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

The Apple religious fundamentalists apparently never read the news.
They endlessly claim things even Apple wouldn't dare to claim. Why?

Do they never read the news?

They even deny that bugs, which are widely reported, are in the
Apple products (such as the recent vast CocoPods vulnerabilities).

What's wrong with these Apple religious fundamentalists?

Is everyone as ignorant as they are?

Blind faith.

I don't have "faith" about computers and technology.

I have experience.

Note that nobody denied CocoaPods vulnerabilities - that's a lie.

Arlen and baldgolferman are projecting their own blind faith. They exude ignorance of these topics, sling juvenile insults when corrected, and
brazenly lie in order to disrupt factual discourse due to their own
blind zealotry. When they are shown to be wrong, they just double down
on their lies and repeat their insults. It's pretty pathetic behavior.
They spend literal hours and hours trolling newsgroups of products for
which they hold irrational hatred daily. What a miserable existence.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-04, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

The Apple religious fundamentalists apparently never read the news.
They endlessly claim things even Apple wouldn't dare to claim. Why?

Do they never read the news?

They even deny that bugs, which are widely reported, are in the Apple products (such as the recent vast CocoPods vulnerabilities).

What's wrong with these Apple religious fundamentalists?

Is everyone as ignorant as they are?

Why do you spend countless hours every day trolling newsgroups of
products for which you hold an irrational hatred, little Arlen?

Nobody in this news group denied the existence of CocoaPods
vulnerabilities, little Arlen. Why do you feel the need to lie?

Why do you have so much trouble understanding that the vulnerabilities
weren't in Apple software but in a repository system used not by Apple,
but by app developers?

And why didn't you know that an enormous number of open source
vulnerabilities remain unpatched for 10 years and longer?

Open source vulnerabilities remain unpatched for decades <https://www.itweb.co.za/article/open-source-vulnerabilities-remain-unpatched-for-decades/wbrpO7gPwGdMDLZn>
---
A new report reveals an enormous number of identified open source vulnerabilities remain unpatched for 10 years and longer, often because organisations have no idea what open source code they are using.
.
.
.
With software developers routinely taking code from open source
repositories to embed in their company's products to speed up the
development process, saving time and money, manually tracking
components, their versions and their vulnerabilities is way beyond the capabilities of most organisations.

The report recommends all organisations invest in an automated solution
for identifying and patching known vulnerabilities. "You can't patch
software if you don't know you are using it," the authors point out.
---

Your own ignorance is showing, little Arlen. Unbeknownst to you, these CocoaPods vulnerabilities are not an uncommon phenomenon, and this is a
problem on all platforms.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Jolly Roger wrote on 4 Jul 2024 17:31:43 GMT :

When they are shown to be wrong, they just double down
on their lies and repeat their insults. It's pretty pathetic behavior.
They spend literal hours and hours trolling newsgroups of products for
which they hold irrational hatred daily. What a miserable existence.

It's no longer shocking that Jolly Roger lied for years about Apple
operating system support, when even Apple has publicly openly stated that
they have never simultaneously fully supported more than one release.

When the religious zealots finally heard that Apple was forced to admit
they had never fully supported more than one release, they resorted to
brazen and repeated lies claiming Apple's public admission was wrong.

They're *still* claiming Apple's own public admission is completely wrong!

What kind of strange person does that?
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Jolly Roger wrote on 4 Jul 2024 17:37:39 GMT :

Nobody in this news group denied the existence of CocoaPods

The question is asking whether everyone is as blissfully ignorant of what
Apple is as are you rather strange very loyal religious fundamentalists.

Not only do you never know anything about Apple vulnerabilities, Jolly
Roger, but you religious zealots immediately attack in crusader-like
fashion, anyone who even so much as dares to publish Apple vulnerabilities.

Who does that?

The first thing you always do is brazenly every vulnerability.

Then you frantically find a way to use whataboutism to blame everyone but
Apple for Apple's huge and many vulnerabilities due to lack of testing.

You blame Google for Apple's flaws. You blame Samsung. You blame Microsoft
too. You blame anyone but Apple for the huge flaws in the entire ecosystem.

Then, when you can no longer deflect the topic off the huge flaws in teh
Apple ecosystem, you then vehemently attack any bearer of truthful news.

Who does that?

The only question I have is are you doing that because you're blissfully ignorant of everything surrounding the Apple ecosystem?

Or, maybe are you paid by Apple to deny every fact about Apple you hate?

Dunno.
All I know is you strange religious zealots appear to be incredibly
ignorant of all things around Apple products.

You can't even answer the simplest questions of how Apple updates work.

Who is that ignorant? Nobody is that stupid, right?
And yet, you are.

How can anyone be that blissfully ignorant of everything?
The bliss you enjoy from your ignorance must be as strong as opiates.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 4 Jul 2024 17:37:39 GMT :

Nobody in this news group denied the existence of CocoaPods

The question is asking whether everyone is as blissfully ignorant of what Apple is as are you rather strange very loyal religious fundamentalists.

Not only do you never know anything about Apple vulnerabilities, Jolly
Roger, but you religious zealots immediately attack in crusader-like
fashion, anyone who even so much as dares to publish Apple vulnerabilities.

Who does that?

The first thing you always do is brazenly every vulnerability.

Then you frantically find a way to use whataboutism to blame everyone but Apple for Apple's huge and many vulnerabilities due to lack of testing.

You blame Google for Apple's flaws. You blame Samsung. You blame Microsoft too. You blame anyone but Apple for the huge flaws in the entire ecosystem.

Then, when you can no longer deflect the topic off the huge flaws in teh Apple ecosystem, you then vehemently attack any bearer of truthful news.

Who does that?

The only question I have is are you doing that because you're blissfully ignorant of everything surrounding the Apple ecosystem?

Or, maybe are you paid by Apple to deny every fact about Apple you hate?

Dunno.
All I know is you strange religious zealots appear to be incredibly
ignorant of all things around Apple products.

You can't even answer the simplest questions of how Apple updates work.

Who is that ignorant? Nobody is that stupid, right?
And yet, you are.

How can anyone be that blissfully ignorant of everything?
The bliss you enjoy from your ignorance must be as strong as opiates.

Personally I think they are so invested in the perfection of Apple that
they cannot bear the thought of there being flaws in its products. If
someone exposes such flaws, it invalidates everything they stand for.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

badgolferman wrote on Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:57:23 -0000 (UTC) :

How can anyone be that blissfully ignorant of everything?
The bliss you enjoy from your ignorance must be as strong as opiates.

Personally I think they are so invested in the perfection of Apple that
they cannot bear the thought of there being flaws in its products. If
someone exposes such flaws, it invalidates everything they stand for.

You're logical and sensible, as am I, so I would have to agree with you.

I was trying to think of a situation where I'd be like they are, where, for example, if you told me a truth about Google or Samsung or Android
(regarding my Galaxy phone), I'd agree with you. I wouldn't defend any of
them to the death as they all suck. I don't owe them samurai-like loyalty.

If you told me there was a bug affecting 3 million apps which had not been noticed for a decade, I'd appreciate that information. If you told me that
my phone isn't updated as frequently as I thought it was, I'd thank you.

I don't want to live in blissful ignorance.
I want to live in knowledgeable awareness.

But these strange zealots appear to want to remain blissfully ignorant.

Even more to the point of the blissful ignorance, if you told me that any
of them didn't update my operating system the way most people think it
would have been updated... I'd be APPRECIATIVE that you informed me.

A normal person doesn't fight the person providing information that they
were unaware of prior, right? A normal person welcomes more data, right?

But these strange religious zealots literally ATTACK anyone providing data. Apparently, saying facts about Apple ruins their blissful ignorance.

I wouldn't attack you for ruining my blissful ignorance, now would I?
I'd welcome you informing me of things about my phone that I didn't know.

Unlike a normal person, it seems like these religious zealots want to
remain in blissful ignorance - as it somehow placates them to not know.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-04 13:31, Jolly Roger wrote:

Arlen and baldgolferman are projecting their own blind faith.

Which is why they should not be replied to.
They are trolls - and the sole remedy for trolls is to deprive them of
oxygen: replies.
--
"It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
Winston Churchill

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-05, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-04 13:31, Jolly Roger wrote:

Arlen and baldgolferman are projecting their own blind faith.

Which is why they should not be replied to. They are trolls - and the
sole remedy for trolls is to deprive them of oxygen: replies.

Their constant nym switching guarantees that doesn't happen, meanwhile
they spew outright lies that otherwise would remain uncorrected.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Jolly Roger wrote on 5 Jul 2024 01:40:02 GMT :

meanwhile
they spew outright lies that otherwise would remain uncorrected.

As I study you rather strange religious zealots, what's conspicuous is how desperately afraid you are are of the facts about Apple & its products.

You literally *fear* any and all facts about Apple products to the point
that the only thing you want is to remain blissfully ignorant of facts.

Why?
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 04/07/2024 21:04, Andrew wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 4 Jul 2024 17:37:39 GMT :

Nobody in this news group denied the existence of CocoaPods

The question is asking whether everyone is as blissfully ignorant of what Apple is as are you rather strange very loyal religious fundamentalists.

What's no longer surprising is how people who like to bash Apple don't
even read the news they're using as evidence of Apple's failures.

Apple had no role and was not responsible for any aspect of this vulnerability. As you'll note no iOS or macOS patch has been issued to
resolve this vulnerability.

You can check yourself what cocoapods is about and who manages it: https://cocoapods.org/about
https://github.com/CocoaPods

You're doing the equivalent of blaming google for the recent xz
vulnerability which is clearly rubbish. https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/04/what-we-know-about-the-xz-utils-backdoor-that-almost-infected-the-world/

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Chris wrote on Fri, 5 Jul 2024 09:40:46 +0100 :

Nobody in this news group denied the existence of CocoaPods

The question is asking whether everyone is as blissfully ignorant of what
Apple is as are you rather strange very loyal religious fundamentalists.

What's no longer surprising is how people who like to bash Apple don't
even read the news they're using as evidence of Apple's failures.

You Apple nutcases always claim that I love Google & Microsoft.

Let me tell you something, Chris - which you should already know by now.

I tell the truth (with cites) about every consumer operating system, Chris.

Apple had no role and was not responsible for any aspect of this vulnerability. As you'll note no iOS or macOS patch has been issued to resolve this vulnerability.

You can check yourself what cocoapods is about and who manages it: https://cocoapods.org/about
https://github.com/CocoaPods

Since the flaw is so fantastically pervasive, and since it allows
zero-click exploits on only Apple products, don't you think Apple should
have cared about testing this since it affects billions of users?

<https://thehackernews.com/2024/07/critical-flaws-in-cocoapods-expose-ios.html>

You're doing the equivalent of blaming google for the recent xz vulnerability which is clearly rubbish. https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/04/what-we-know-about-the-xz-utils-backdoor-that-almost-infected-the-world/

Again, you need to reconsider your assertion that I love Google and
Microsoft but that I only bash Apple, Chris. I tell the facts.

If you happen to hate the facts about Apple, that's not my fault.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-04 21:40, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2024-07-05, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-04 13:31, Jolly Roger wrote:

Arlen and baldgolferman are projecting their own blind faith.

Which is why they should not be replied to. They are trolls - and the
sole remedy for trolls is to deprive them of oxygen: replies.

Their constant nym switching guarantees that doesn't happen, meanwhile
they spew outright lies that otherwise would remain uncorrected.

They're pretty detectable and the lies are blatant - don't need
correction. Usenet is far from the destination people go to for
clarification about anything.
--
"It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
Winston Churchill

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

[snip typical nonsense]

Personally I think they are so invested in the perfection of Apple that
they cannot bear the thought of there being flaws in its products. If
someone exposes such flaws, it invalidates everything they stand for.

The other side of the coin is that some people are so eager to find flaws
in Apple they forget to check basic facts. Like is this even anything
within Apple's control? Hint: nope.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

[snip typical nonsense]

Personally I think they are so invested in the perfection of Apple that
they cannot bear the thought of there being flaws in its products. If
someone exposes such flaws, it invalidates everything they stand for.

The other side of the coin is that some people are so eager to find flaws
in Apple they forget to check basic facts. Like is this even anything
within Apple's control? Hint: nope.

If Apple software is dependent upon someone else’s software, it’s Apple’s responsibility to ensure that software is safe. After all, it’s Apple who tells us they are focused on safety and security.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-05 11:43, badgolferman wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

[snip typical nonsense]

Personally I think they are so invested in the perfection of Apple that
they cannot bear the thought of there being flaws in its products. If
someone exposes such flaws, it invalidates everything they stand for.

The other side of the coin is that some people are so eager to find flaws
in Apple they forget to check basic facts. Like is this even anything
within Apple's control? Hint: nope.

If Apple software is dependent upon someone else’s software, it’s Apple’s
responsibility to ensure that software is safe. After all, it’s Apple who tells us they are focused on safety and security.

Which you'll argue while at the same time arguing that Apple is wrong to
do what it can to increase safety and security by using an app store.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-05 11:43, badgolferman wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

[snip typical nonsense]

Personally I think they are so invested in the perfection of Apple that >>>> they cannot bear the thought of there being flaws in its products. If
someone exposes such flaws, it invalidates everything they stand for.

The other side of the coin is that some people are so eager to find flaws >>> in Apple they forget to check basic facts. Like is this even anything
within Apple's control? Hint: nope.

If Apple software is dependent upon someone else’s software, it’s Apple’s
responsibility to ensure that software is safe. After all, it’s Apple who >> tells us they are focused on safety and security.

Which you'll argue while at the same time arguing that Apple is wrong to
do what it can to increase safety and security by using an app store.

I have no problem with the App Store. But I do think the option to use
other stores should exist, with all warnings and check marks required for
you to advance. Apple shouldn’t be responsible for software they have not vetted and if the customer still wants it then they are culpable if
something goes wrong.

But this is a different situation. Apple used someone else’s software and didn’t correctly vet that. It perpetuated itself deeper and has caused security problems now. That’s on Apple.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-05 13:02, badgolferman wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-05 11:43, badgolferman wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

[snip typical nonsense]

Personally I think they are so invested in the perfection of Apple that >>>>> they cannot bear the thought of there being flaws in its products. If >>>>> someone exposes such flaws, it invalidates everything they stand for. >>>>

The other side of the coin is that some people are so eager to find flaws >>>> in Apple they forget to check basic facts. Like is this even anything
within Apple's control? Hint: nope.

If Apple software is dependent upon someone else’s software, it’s Apple’s
responsibility to ensure that software is safe. After all, it’s Apple who >>> tells us they are focused on safety and security.

Which you'll argue while at the same time arguing that Apple is wrong to
do what it can to increase safety and security by using an app store.

I have no problem with the App Store. But I do think the option to use
other stores should exist, with all warnings and check marks required for
you to advance. Apple shouldn’t be responsible for software they have not vetted and if the customer still wants it then they are culpable if
something goes wrong.

So now you say that Apple shouldn't be responsible.

Make up your mind, huh?

But this is a different situation. Apple used someone else’s software and didn’t correctly vet that. It perpetuated itself deeper and has caused security problems now. That’s on Apple.

CocoaPods is a dependency manager; a software tool you use to create
software. It manages the dependencies you're using. It isn't software
that itself winds up IN your software.

So how could Apple reasonably check if some third-party software was
built using it?
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-05 13:02, badgolferman wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-05 11:43, badgolferman wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

[snip typical nonsense]

Personally I think they are so invested in the perfection of Apple that >>>>>> they cannot bear the thought of there being flaws in its products. If >>>>>> someone exposes such flaws, it invalidates everything they stand for. >>>>>

The other side of the coin is that some people are so eager to find flaws >>>>> in Apple they forget to check basic facts. Like is this even anything >>>>> within Apple's control? Hint: nope.

If Apple software is dependent upon someone else’s software, it’s Apple’s
responsibility to ensure that software is safe. After all, it’s Apple who
tells us they are focused on safety and security.

Which you'll argue while at the same time arguing that Apple is wrong to >>> do what it can to increase safety and security by using an app store.

I have no problem with the App Store. But I do think the option to use
other stores should exist, with all warnings and check marks required for
you to advance. Apple shouldn’t be responsible for software they have not >> vetted and if the customer still wants it then they are culpable if
something goes wrong.

So now you say that Apple shouldn't be responsible.

Make up your mind, huh?

But this is a different situation. Apple used someone else’s software and >> didn’t correctly vet that. It perpetuated itself deeper and has caused
security problems now. That’s on Apple.

CocoaPods is a dependency manager; a software tool you use to create software. It manages the dependencies you're using. It isn't software
that itself winds up IN your software.

So how could Apple reasonably check if some third-party software was
built using it?

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought this problem also affected the Apple software engineers.

In any case, I’m sure it’s virtually impossible to keep track of everything but a company that touts its safety and security presence must do more.
Look at LastPass, they’ve become a joke.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-05 13:34, badgolferman wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-05 13:02, badgolferman wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-05 11:43, badgolferman wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

[snip typical nonsense]

Personally I think they are so invested in the perfection of Apple that >>>>>>> they cannot bear the thought of there being flaws in its products. If >>>>>>> someone exposes such flaws, it invalidates everything they stand for. >>>>>>

The other side of the coin is that some people are so eager to find flaws
in Apple they forget to check basic facts. Like is this even anything >>>>>> within Apple's control? Hint: nope.

If Apple software is dependent upon someone else’s software, it’s Apple’s
responsibility to ensure that software is safe. After all, it’s Apple who
tells us they are focused on safety and security.

Which you'll argue while at the same time arguing that Apple is wrong to >>>> do what it can to increase safety and security by using an app store.

I have no problem with the App Store. But I do think the option to use
other stores should exist, with all warnings and check marks required for >>> you to advance. Apple shouldn’t be responsible for software they have not >>> vetted and if the customer still wants it then they are culpable if
something goes wrong.

So now you say that Apple shouldn't be responsible.

Make up your mind, huh?

But this is a different situation. Apple used someone else’s software and >>> didn’t correctly vet that. It perpetuated itself deeper and has caused >>> security problems now. That’s on Apple.

CocoaPods is a dependency manager; a software tool you use to create
software. It manages the dependencies you're using. It isn't software
that itself winds up IN your software.

So how could Apple reasonably check if some third-party software was
built using it?

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought this problem also affected the Apple software engineers.

Where did you read that?

In any case, I’m sure it’s virtually impossible to keep track of everything
but a company that touts its safety and security presence must do more.
Look at LastPass, they’ve become a joke.

Again:

What CocoaPods is is a tool used during software development for
managing the libraries that a software developer uses, and after the
software is deployed, the developer continues to use it to track updates
to those libraries...

...but all of that takes place in a manner that is completely opaque to
Apple.

There is no practical way for Apple to detect the fact that the
developers of CocoaPods screwed up and created a system that let bad
actors claim ownership of the "Pods" (external libraries) that CocoaPods tracks and insert malicious code in them.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-05 16:43, Alan wrote:

Again:

What CocoaPods is is

Explaining s/w toolchains to mental midgets is not a good use of time.
--
"It would be a measureless disaster if Russian barbarism overlaid
the culture and independence of the ancient States of Europe."
Winston Churchill

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-05 16:43, Alan wrote:

Again:

What CocoaPods is is

Explaining s/w toolchains to mental midgets is not a good use of time.

Why must you be so rude and insulting? I didn’t say anything personal about anyone and already admitted I may be mistaken. Have you ever been wrong?

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-05 14:59, badgolferman wrote:

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-05 16:43, Alan wrote:

Again:

What CocoaPods is is

<s>

Explaining s/w toolchains to mental midgets is not a good use of time.

Why must you be so rude and insulting? I didn’t say anything personal about anyone and already admitted I may be mistaken. Have you ever been wrong?

Does this ring any bells?

'Personally I think they are so invested in the perfection of Apple that
they cannot bear the thought of there being flaws in its products. If
someone exposes such flaws, it invalidates everything they stand for. '
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-05, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-05 14:59, badgolferman wrote:

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-05 16:43, Alan wrote:

Again:

What CocoaPods is is

<s>

Explaining s/w toolchains to mental midgets is not a good use of
time.

Why must you be so rude and insulting? I didn’t say anything personal
about anyone and already admitted I may be mistaken. Have you ever
been wrong?

Does this ring any bells?

'Personally I think they are so invested in the perfection of Apple
that they cannot bear the thought of there being flaws in its
products. If someone exposes such flaws, it invalidates everything
they stand for. '

Every accusation is a confession with these morons.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Fri, 5 Jul 2024 09:40:46 +0100 :

Nobody in this news group denied the existence of CocoaPods

The question is asking whether everyone is as blissfully ignorant of what >>> Apple is as are you rather strange very loyal religious fundamentalists.

What's no longer surprising is how people who like to bash Apple don't
even read the news they're using as evidence of Apple's failures.

You Apple nutcases always claim that I love Google & Microsoft.

You're fantasising again. No-one has said that.

Let me tell you something, Chris - which you should already know by now.

I tell the truth (with cites) about every consumer operating system, Chris.

You have no concept of the truth or facts. And when you get caught out, you snip and run.

Apple had no role and was not responsible for any aspect of this
vulnerability. As you'll note no iOS or macOS patch has been issued to
resolve this vulnerability.

You can check yourself what cocoapods is about and who manages it:
https://cocoapods.org/about
https://github.com/CocoaPods

Since the flaw is so fantastically pervasive, and since it allows
zero-click exploits on only Apple products, don't you think Apple should
have cared about testing this since it affects billions of users?

What libraries developers use is their responsibility, not Apple's. It's
the same with all OSes.

If Apple became even more prescriptive regarding how apps should be
developed you'd be the first to claim foul play and complain even more
about the "walled garden".

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-05 11:43, badgolferman wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

[snip typical nonsense]

Personally I think they are so invested in the perfection of Apple that >>>>> they cannot bear the thought of there being flaws in its products. If >>>>> someone exposes such flaws, it invalidates everything they stand for. >>>>

The other side of the coin is that some people are so eager to find flaws >>>> in Apple they forget to check basic facts. Like is this even anything
within Apple's control? Hint: nope.

If Apple software is dependent upon someone else’s software, it’s Apple’s
responsibility to ensure that software is safe. After all, it’s Apple who >>> tells us they are focused on safety and security.

Which you'll argue while at the same time arguing that Apple is wrong to
do what it can to increase safety and security by using an app store.

I have no problem with the App Store. But I do think the option to use
other stores should exist, with all warnings and check marks required for
you to advance. Apple shouldn’t be responsible for software they have not vetted and if the customer still wants it then they are culpable if
something goes wrong.

But this is a different situation. Apple used someone else’s software and didn’t correctly vet that.

See? You don't even understand the vulnerability. Yet you're happy to
freely blame Apple.

Apple haven't used anything here. It is third party developers who used a utility that made life easier for them to support *their* apps. These apps
then are deployed into the Apple ecosystem.

Apple haven't used it, cannot check and have no responsibility for what
tools developers use in creating their apps.

It perpetuated itself deeper and has caused
security problems now. That’s on Apple.

That's like blaming Ford for a flaw in Continental tyres.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

badgolferman wrote on Fri, 5 Jul 2024 21:59:36 -0000 (UTC) :

Explaining s/w toolchains to mental midgets is not a good use of time.

Why must you be so rude and insulting? I didn¢t say anything personal about anyone and already admitted I may be mistaken. Have you ever been wrong?

It's interesting that the Apple religious zealots calls anyone a mental
midget who notices that Apple touts safety & security that doesn't exist.

If security researchers could have found the flaws, then why not Apple?

Notice that the Apple zealots are effectively saying not only that Apple doesn't test the software used in iOS & macOS but that Apple can't test
their software for safety & security.

These zealots say that the only thing Apple can do, is advertise false
safety and security as, according to them, Apple can't test for it.

Mental midgets indeed - they can't see the fallacy of their own excuses.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Jolly Roger wrote on 5 Jul 2024 22:55:57 GMT :

Every accusation is a confession with these morons.

What badgolferman very sensibly said was Apple touts safety & security.

To which the religious zealots said Apple has no control over the safety
and security of the millions of apps used by iOS and macOS users.

Even though that's not correct since security professionals found the flaw.

Badgolerman === logical
Apple zealots === make no sense logically

What's no longer shocking is those who say in one breath that Apple
provides safety and security and yet, in the next breath these Apple
religious zealots claim safety & security is beyond Apple's control

Think about those facts of your own statements before you response please.

Badgolferman === Apple touts safety & security - so it's their job to test. Apple Zealots === Apple can't test for safety & security - so it's not
Apple's job to test applications used by millions of Apple users daily.

Who is the mental midget?
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Chris wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 07:39:51 -0000 (UTC) :

See?

What I see is Apple touts safety & security that doesn't exist.

You don't even understand the vulnerability.

What you're saying, Chris, is that Apple lied because you're saying that
Apple has no control over the safety and security of the apps people use.

Yet you're happy to freely blame Apple.

Answer this question without resorting to lies, please, Chris:
Q: Does Apple tout the safety & security of iOS and macOS or not?
A: Yes or No

Apple haven't used anything here.

Xcode is Apple software, Chris.

It is third party developers who used a
utility that made life easier for them to support *their* apps.

They used Apple's recommended methods of development, Chris.

These apps then are deployed into the Apple ecosystem.

Answer this simple yet logically sensible question please:
Q: Did vulnerability researchers find this pervasive flaw, or not?
A: Yes or No

Apple haven't used it, cannot check and have no responsibility for what
tools developers use in creating their apps.

Simply answer this sensibly logical question then, please, Chris:
Q: If researchers could find this flaw, could Apple have found it?
A: Yes or No

It perpetuated itself deeper and has caused
security problems now. That¢s on Apple.

That's like blaming Ford for a flaw in Continental tyres.

Apple advertises safety & security.

Zealots are claiming that safety & security is impossible on Apple products because of the way millions of those Apple products are developed using
Apple software (Xcode).

What's no longer shocking is those who say in one breath that Apple
provides safety and security and yet, in the next breath these Apple
religious zealots claim safety & security is beyond Apple's control
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Chris wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 07:33:51 -0000 (UTC) :

You Apple nutcases always claim that I love Google & Microsoft.

You're fantasising again. No-one has said that.

No. You're who is fantasizing. I'm on record many times for telling the
ugly truth about any and all operating systems, from Canonical's Unity
(which I hated) to Microsoft's removal of the start menu, to Google
creating accounts on the phone when you use GMail, to Apple's brazen lies
that they provide safety and security when Apple does nothing of the sort.

Apple advertises safety & security.

Zealots are claiming that safety & security is impossible on Apple products because of the way millions of those Apple products are developed using
Apple software (Xcode).

What's no longer shocking is those who say in one breath that Apple
provides safety and security and yet, in the next breath these Apple
religious zealots claim safety & security is beyond Apple's control

Let me tell you something, Chris - which you should already know by now.

I tell the truth (with cites) about every consumer operating system, Chris.

You have no concept of the truth or facts.

You are a religious zealot. Your entire belief system is based purely on
Apple advertisements. Apple advertises safety & security. You believe it.

But then....

And when you get caught out, you snip and run.

Apple advertises safety & security. You believe it.

But then....

Then, when the XCode/CocoPods vulnerability shows up which researchers
found, you claim that Apple is too incompetent to even have *thought* about testing the iOS/macOS software that billions of Apple users use.

Not only do you claim Apple is too incompetent to even have thought about testing macOS/iOS apps for safety and security, but you claim that Apple doesn't have the technical capacity to test for safety & security.

Witness your own post here, Chris, saying exactly that.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=15606&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#15606>

Since the flaw is so fantastically pervasive, and since it allows
zero-click exploits on only Apple products, don't you think Apple should
have cared about testing this since it affects billions of users?

What libraries developers use is their responsibility, not Apple's. It's
the same with all OSes.

If Apple became even more prescriptive regarding how apps should be
developed you'd be the first to claim foul play and complain even more
about the "walled garden".

Apple advertises safety & security.

Zealots are claiming that safety & security is impossible on Apple products because of the way millions of those Apple products are developed using
Apple software (Xcode).

What's no longer shocking is those who say in one breath that Apple
provides safety and security and yet, in the next breath these Apple
religious zealots claim safety & security is beyond Apple's control.

All you're really saying is you believe Apple's lies even as you know that
they are lies (since you believe Apple can't provide safety & security).
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-05 13:02, badgolferman wrote:

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

On 2024-07-05 11:43, badgolferman wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

[snip typical nonsense]

Personally I think they are so invested in the perfection of Apple that >>>>> they cannot bear the thought of there being flaws in its products. If >>>>> someone exposes such flaws, it invalidates everything they stand for. >>>>

The other side of the coin is that some people are so eager to find flaws >>>> in Apple they forget to check basic facts. Like is this even anything
within Apple's control? Hint: nope.

If Apple software is dependent upon someone else’s software, it’s Apple’s
responsibility to ensure that software is safe. After all, it’s Apple who >>> tells us they are focused on safety and security.

Which you'll argue while at the same time arguing that Apple is wrong to
do what it can to increase safety and security by using an app store.

I have no problem with the App Store. But I do think the option to use
other stores should exist, with all warnings and check marks required for
you to advance. Apple shouldn’t be responsible for software they have not vetted and if the customer still wants it then they are culpable if
something goes wrong.

But this is a different situation. Apple used someone else’s software and didn’t correctly vet that. It perpetuated itself deeper and has caused security problems now. That’s on Apple.

Apple didn't "use someone else's software".

Third parties used a tool to build their apps.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-06 07:07, Andrew wrote:

Chris wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 07:39:51 -0000 (UTC) :

See?

What I see is Apple touts safety & security that doesn't exist.

You don't even understand the vulnerability.

What you're saying, Chris, is that Apple lied because you're saying that Apple has no control over the safety and security of the apps people use.

Nope. That is not what he is saying at all.

Yet you're happy to freely blame Apple.

Answer this question without resorting to lies, please, Chris:
Q: Does Apple tout the safety & security of iOS and macOS or not?
A: Yes or No

Yes. How is that relevant?

Apple haven't used anything here.

Xcode is Apple software, Chris.

Yup. And this vulnerability isn't in Xcode.

It is third party developers who used a
utility that made life easier for them to support *their* apps.

They used Apple's recommended methods of development, Chris.

Apple doesn't recommend CocoaPods.

These apps then are deployed into the Apple ecosystem.

Answer this simple yet logically sensible question please:
Q: Did vulnerability researchers find this pervasive flaw, or not?
A: Yes or No

Yes. What of it?

Apple haven't used it, cannot check and have no responsibility for what
tools developers use in creating their apps.

Simply answer this sensibly logical question then, please, Chris:
Q: If researchers could find this flaw, could Apple have found it?
A: Yes or No

Yes. What of it?

It perpetuated itself deeper and has caused
security problems now. That�s on Apple.

That's like blaming Ford for a flaw in Continental tyres.

Apple advertises safety & security.

Zealots are claiming that safety & security is impossible on Apple products because of the way millions of those Apple products are developed using
Apple software (Xcode).

Ummmmmm... that is a flat-out lie.

Which from you is utterly unsurprising.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 07:33:51 -0000 (UTC) :

You Apple nutcases always claim that I love Google & Microsoft.

You're fantasising again. No-one has said that.

No. You're who is fantasizing.

No. you are.

I tell the truth (with cites) about every consumer operating system, Chris. >>

You have no concept of the truth or facts.

You are a religious zealot.

Nope. I'm an atheist.

Not only do you claim Apple is too incompetent to even have thought about testing macOS/iOS apps for safety and security, but you claim that Apple doesn't have the technical capacity to test for safety & security.

Witness your own post here, Chris, saying exactly that.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=15606&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#15606>

You must have some form of comprehension disability. Any english speaking person can understand that what you claim is at odds with what I wrote.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Chris wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 23:30:21 -0000 (UTC) :

Witness your own post here, Chris, saying exactly that.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=15606&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#15606>

You must have some form of comprehension disability. Any english speaking person can understand that what you claim is at odds with what I wrote.

Jolly Roger wrote on 7 Jul 2024 02:06:58 GMT :

The fact is that I'm beginning to think you didn't lie, Chris.

Not a fact. You lose.]

Holy shit! You didn't lie!
*You're just incredibly confident in your complete ignorance!*
<https://i.sstatic.net/NJkCp.png>

I've always said that there are always one of two reasons why you Apple religious fundamentalist zealots are so confident about being wrong.
<https://i.sstatic.net/wgoc9.jpg>

1. You either brazenly lie, or,
2. You really believe Apple fully supports more than 1 release at a time.
<https://i.sstatic.net/XgbX3.jpg>

Since Chris and you can't answer this simple question, even now...
Q: Does Apple publicly state they fully support only one release at a time?
A: Yes or no.

I'm beginning to realize fundamentalist zealots didn't lie after all.
*You actually _believe_ Apple simultaneously fully supports >1 release!*
<https://i.sstatic.net/QbnWs.png>

In other words, you're all to the left of Mount Stupid on the
Dunning-Kruger scale, which is people who know absolutely nothing but who
feel they know everything - which is all your strange religious zealots.]
<https://i.sstatic.net/wAbpc.jpg>
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-07, Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 23:30:21 -0000 (UTC) :

Witness your own post here, Chris, saying exactly that.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=15606&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#15606>

You must have some form of comprehension disability. Any english speaking
person can understand that what you claim is at odds with what I wrote.

Jolly Roger wrote on 7 Jul 2024 02:06:58 GMT :

The fact is that I'm beginning to think you didn't lie, Chris.

Not a fact. You lose.]

Holy shit! You didn't lie!

Indeed. Here are FACTS you want us to ignore:

Open source vulnerabilities remain unpatched for decades <https://www.itweb.co.za/article/open-source-vulnerabilities-remain-unpatched-for-decades/wbrpO7gPwGdMDLZn>
---
A new report reveals an enormous number of identified open source vulnerabilities remain unpatched for 10 years and longer, often because organisations have no idea what open source code they are using.
.
.
.
With software developers routinely taking code from open source
repositories to embed in their company's products to speed up the
development process, saving time and money, manually tracking
components, their versions and their vulnerabilities is way beyond the capabilities of most organisations.

The report recommends all organisations invest in an automated solution
for identifying and patching known vulnerabilities. "You can't patch
software if you don't know you are using it," the authors point out.
---
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Jolly Roger wrote on 7 Jul 2024 03:22:42 GMT :

Indeed. Here are FACTS you want us to ignore:

Open source vulnerabilities remain unpatched for decades <https://www.itweb.co.za/article/open-source-vulnerabilities-remain-unpatched-for-decades/wbrpO7gPwGdMDLZn>
---
A new report reveals an enormous number of identified open source vulnerabilities remain unpatched for 10 years and longer, often because organisations have no idea what open source code they are using.
.
.
.
With software developers routinely taking code from open source
repositories to embed in their company's products to speed up the
development process, saving time and money, manually tracking
components, their versions and their vulnerabilities is way beyond the capabilities of most organisations.

The report recommends all organisations invest in an automated solution
for identifying and patching known vulnerabilities. "You can't patch
software if you don't know you are using it," the authors point out.

The only facts we need to know are two undeniably salient facts, JR.

1. Apple touts that their ecosystem provides safety & security.
2. Yet Apple apparently has never even tested whether that claim is true.

In fact, it's obvious that Apple didn't even know how vulnerable their ecosystem was for millions of mac/iOS apps for an entire decade, JR!

With that in mind, your excuse is that Apple is incompetent at testing?

HINT: If security researchers can find this flaw, why then can't Apple?
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Sat, 6 Jul 2024 23:30:21 -0000 (UTC) :

Witness your own post here, Chris, saying exactly that.
<https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=15606&group=misc.phone.mobile.iphone#15606>

You must have some form of comprehension disability. Any english speaking
person can understand that what you claim is at odds with what I wrote.

Jolly Roger

Again, a failure of comprehension. I'm not JR.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-06 23:36, Andrew wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 7 Jul 2024 03:22:42 GMT :

Indeed. Here are FACTS you want us to ignore:

Open source vulnerabilities remain unpatched for decades
<https://www.itweb.co.za/article/open-source-vulnerabilities-remain-unpatched-for-decades/wbrpO7gPwGdMDLZn>
---
A new report reveals an enormous number of identified open source
vulnerabilities remain unpatched for 10 years and longer, often because
organisations have no idea what open source code they are using.
.
.
.
With software developers routinely taking code from open source
repositories to embed in their company's products to speed up the
development process, saving time and money, manually tracking
components, their versions and their vulnerabilities is way beyond the
capabilities of most organisations.

The report recommends all organisations invest in an automated solution
for identifying and patching known vulnerabilities. "You can't patch
software if you don't know you are using it," the authors point out.

The only facts we need to know are two undeniably salient facts, JR.

1. Apple touts that their ecosystem provides safety & security.

And it does.

2. Yet Apple apparently has never even tested whether that claim is true.

This is the comment of a liar or an ignoramus...

...or, most likely, both.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

badgolferman wrote on Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:02:22 -0000 (UTC) :

This situation reminds me of the Ford Explorer rollover debacle. Ford
blamed Firestone and Firestone blamed Ford. In reality they both had a
major part in the whole thing. Firestone tires were separating at the tread and Ford Explorers had weak suspensions and high center of gravity. Both of those caused the exceedingly high number of rollovers and deaths.

Whom did the customer purchase the vehicle from, Ford or Firestone?
The answer is Ford. So this is purely a Ford ecosystem problem.

To wit, this huge security hole is purely an Apple ecosystem problem. https://www.darkreading.com/cloud-security/apple-cocoapods-bugs-expose-apps-code-injection

What kind of ecosystem is so primitive that ANYONE ON THE PLANET could
modify any of three million iOS/macOS apps at will - whenever they want?

For ten years!

Take your pick as to whom to blame, but it shows neither company performed adequate testing together or merely ignored warning signs.

If Apple did NOT tout that their ecosystem provided safety and security, we could let Apple off the hook for never bothering to test that claim.

As it is, it's clear that the one thing the primitive Apple ecosystem does
NOT provide, is safety & security.

I wonder if these zealots realize ANYONE ON THE PLANET FOR TEN YEARS could inject ANY CODE THEY WANTED TO INJECT into over three million iOS/mac apps.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-07 20:12, Andrew wrote:

badgolferman wrote on Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:02:22 -0000 (UTC) :

This situation reminds me of the Ford Explorer rollover debacle. Ford
blamed Firestone and Firestone blamed Ford. In reality they both had a
major part in the whole thing. Firestone tires were separating at the tread >> and Ford Explorers had weak suspensions and high center of gravity. Both of >> those caused the exceedingly high number of rollovers and deaths.

Whom did the customer purchase the vehicle from, Ford or Firestone?
The answer is Ford. So this is purely a Ford ecosystem problem.

You get that cars (physical products) aren't the same as software...

...and that your analogy is fatally flawed as this is a tool used to
build an accessory to the product that Apple sells...

...right?

To wit, this huge security hole is purely an Apple ecosystem problem. https://www.darkreading.com/cloud-security/apple-cocoapods-bugs-expose-apps-code-injection

What kind of ecosystem is so primitive that ANYONE ON THE PLANET could
modify any of three million iOS/macOS apps at will - whenever they want?

For ten years!

Take your pick as to whom to blame, but it shows neither company performed >> adequate testing together or merely ignored warning signs.

If Apple did NOT tout that their ecosystem provided safety and security, we could let Apple off the hook for never bothering to test that claim.

As it is, it's clear that the one thing the primitive Apple ecosystem does NOT provide, is safety & security.

I wonder if these zealots realize ANYONE ON THE PLANET FOR TEN YEARS could inject ANY CODE THEY WANTED TO INJECT into over three million iOS/mac apps.

I wonder if you realize how many unsupported assumptions you've made in
that sentence.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Jolly Roger wrote on 8 Jul 2024 15:09:36 GMT :

No, it's definitively not purely an Apple ecosystem problem

It's no longer shocking you are completely unaware that cocoa pods isn't
used in Windows or Linux, Jolly Roger, and the fact you claim it is shows
how blissfully ignorant you strange Apple religious nutcase zealots are.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2024-07-08 13:49, Andrew wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote on 8 Jul 2024 15:09:36 GMT :

No, it's definitively not purely an Apple ecosystem problem

It's no longer shocking you are completely unaware that cocoa pods isn't
used in Windows or Linux, Jolly Roger, and the fact you claim it is shows
how blissfully ignorant you strange Apple religious nutcase zealots are.

You think that Windows and Linux development tools are so primitive that
there are no dependency managers?

How cute!
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2