• Refusing23 6 days ago |
    thats how cloud stored password managers work..
    • a2128 6 days ago |
      Normally you have to explicitly install and use a cloud stored password manager, automatically making the choice for you is a big no-no
      • stouset 6 days ago |
        If you don’t want it, don’t store your passwords in it?
        • SoftTalker 6 days ago |
          Yep. Disabling password storage is one of the first things I do when setting up a browser on a new computer.
      • acdha 6 days ago |
        A decade ago this was more true but all of the major browsers include a cloud password manager now, and this is very popular with normal people because it means a lost or failed device doesn’t mean they have to go through a bunch of password resets.

        The big question here is whether there’s a reproducible way that the opt-in changes. iCloud Keychain has robust end to end encryption but it still needs to inform the user.

    • coldtea 6 days ago |
      They silently enable the option to store in the Cloud on OS update?

      They offer no option to delete your passwords from the Cloud once there?

      If that's indeed how they all/always work, we shouldn't just Stockholm-syndrome accept it!

      • gruez 6 days ago |
        >They offer no option to delete your passwords from the Cloud once there?

        Seems pretty trivial to download the icloud windows client (which has password manager support), and modify/delete the passwords there?

      • nicce 6 days ago |
        > They offer no option to delete your passwords from the Cloud once there?

        Does it matter tho. Like in general internet, once something is posted, it will not disappear with certainty. We can never be certain that there is a copy of the encrypted password on some log file when we have no visibility into that sytem. Since it is encrypted, it passes the regulation checks.

        That is just a UI bug if passwords keep coming back in the cloud/you still see them. Unless there is a system in place that can transparently verify that indeed, the passwords are deleted, does it matter?

        • stouset 6 days ago |
          Your passwords are encrypted with keys stored only in the local on-device TPM.

          This is a pretty lame windmill to tilt at.

          • krageon 6 days ago |
            The only person guaranteeing this is the case and will stay the case is the person keeping your passwords. That seems to me to be a pretty wild thing to have faith in.
            • Retric 6 days ago |
              Companies aren’t people. Compare the benefits to a multi trillion dollar company to maintain security vs the minimal benefits from using your passwords for anything.

              They really want to avoid the risk from anyone inside the company having access to your passwords and then doing anything with them.

              • Sindisil 6 days ago |
                Indeed, companies are not people.

                Compare the consequences for a large company vs an individual.

                For the individual, if caught, a debilitating fine and, depending upon damages, jail time. Probable end of career, if related.

                In short, life changing.

                For the company, possible fine almost certainly less than the revenue made. Small chance of larger civil suits, with legal costs and possible judgments. Depending upon visibility, perhaps some additional PR spend. Even if the sum total cost is greater than the associated revenue, those costs can be used to offset tax liability.

                In short, low risk of existential threat, or even actual financial loss -- just reduced profits.

                • onetokeoverthe 6 days ago |
                  The company will also consider the benefits of cooperating with Spook Agency Inc.

                  Maybe a plunge protection stock-price guarantee.

                  Or NOT.

                • Retric 6 days ago |
                  A person is likely not to be caught making their downside a fraction to their personal well-being and finances. 1/3 of the people on early would easily see more upside than downside from getting access to your banking info.

                  Apple on the other hand would see your bank balance as a rounding error to a rounding error, but could easily lose a billion dollar from bad publicity that’s what’s balancing vs any financial upsides. Further, doing it once doesn’t move the needle it needs massive scale and thus massive risks to be worth anything to them.

          • nicce 6 days ago |
            I think you misunderstood my comment.

            It is essentially about the trust. You either trust that they don't misuse the cloud-uploaded passwords or not. If you cannot trust that, you cannot trust the whole ecosystem as the same entity controls it and can misuse it in any imaginable way.

            So essentially, the issue of deletion is just about the visibility in the UI, if we trust their claim about the end-to-end encryption.

        • Gud 6 days ago |
          Sorry, this is false.

          You can absolutely to a high degree protect and store data, including the safe removal.

          An organisation like Apple should absolutely be forced to delete the data, especially data collected using deceptive tactics

          • nicce 6 days ago |
            > You can absolutely to a high degree protect and store data, including the safe removal.

            > An organisation like Apple should absolutely be forced to delete the data, especially data collected using deceptive tactics

            As long as there are no consequences (regulation checks with fines) of not doing it correctly and/or if there is no observability and enforceability, it is just talk and does not matter in practice. Essentially, until the previous applies, it is just exchanging trust with words.

            • Gud 6 days ago |
              Why? Why can’t the default state be that I can trust my vendors of software not to gobble up my most private information?

              OpenBSD has never sent my passwords to Theo’s basement. I trust them without regulations. But more importantly, there’s a crew of capable hackers dissecting the code.

              • nicce 6 days ago |
                I would like that default, but otherwise it is a bit silly assumption.

                1. You can't demand something that cannot be enforced/monitored

                2. You can't enforce/ push monitoring if there is no regulation in place, and systems are not transparent.

                3. Enforcement/monitoring does not matter if there is no stick (fines) present

                In the case of OpenBSD, you are using open system that you can verify your self. That alone makes them less likely to do something malicious (since they might get caught more likely!) and changes the trust. There is no financial carrot to make Apple products visible, as most of the users don't understand a thing about the technology and marketing might be more efficient than opening technology, which might result in intellectual property theft and lose of market position.

                Since everything cannot be transparent in a competitive and commercial world, I think it would be okay to put at least 10 times bigger fines for those who do not have transparent systems and get caught on not following the regulations to get some balance.

                • Gud 6 days ago |
                  That there isn’t an open, mobile hardware platform is a failure of the community, in my opinion.. although some have the right ideas, framework as an example of an open laptop platform.

                  We desperately need a free hard- & software (*nix) mobile platform, that is not exclusively owned by a for profit mega corporation and somewhat mainstream amongst the hacker community. Even better would be competing systems. I imagine these systems to have a high degree of modularity, incl. battery, and memory upgrades.

                  This is not an easy undertaking.

                  I don’t think regulating the megacorps is the answer. In a commercial world, they have the deeper pockets

      • threeseed 6 days ago |
        You just open Keychain/Passwords and delete the passwords.

        Has been this way for at least a decade.

        • lapcat 6 days ago |
          > You just open Keychain/Passwords and delete the passwords.

          This also deletes the local copy of the passwords.

          • threeseed 6 days ago |
            There is a separate iCloud Keychain so you can just copy to your local one.

            Or use the Export All Passwords feature in the Passwords app.

            • lapcat 6 days ago |
              > There is a separate iCloud Keychain

              No, there is not. If there was a separate iCloud Keychain, then my passwords never would have gotten uploaded in the first place. Most of these passwords were Safari web form logins. Safari stores them where it wants.

              > Or use the Export All Passwords feature in the Passwords app.

              Export them to where? I want to use the operating system to store my passwords locally. I just don't want them in iCloud.

              • tonyedgecombe 6 days ago |
                >I want to use the operating system to store my passwords locally. I just don't want them in iCloud.

                Settings -> Apple ID -> iCloud -> iCloud Passwords & Keychain -> Sync this Mac

              • thejazzman 6 days ago |
                If you open the keychain app on a Mac you can clearly see the existence of multiple keychains and one explicitly labeled iCloud

                iCloud only stores passwords when you're logged into iCloud. Logout and you're local only.

                Would it be nice to have no configuration and customization? Sure. People have felt that way for as long as I can remember.

                • lapcat 6 days ago |
                  > If you open the keychain app on a Mac

                  I've been using the Keychain app on the Mac for 20 years.

                  > you can clearly see the existence of multiple keychains and one explicitly labeled iCloud

                  There's no "iCloud" keychain if you don't use iCloud Keychain. There is a "Local Items" keychain. Let me emphasize LOCAL in the name. Unfortunately, what happens when iCloud Keychain is enabled (silently, without consent in my case), "Local Items" becomes "iCloud". macOS stores a lot of things in the Local Items keychain, including Safari web form passwords, which is why mine got silently uploaded to iCloud.

    • hello0904 6 days ago |
      Well, the real problem is iCloud Keychain is essentially a "black box" system. Apple does use AES encryption in various parts of their security architecture, as documented in their security white papers. But we can't confirm the specific implementation details for iCloud Keychain.

      And you should also know...

      Best practices for password storage use one-way hash functions (like bcrypt, Argon2, or PBKDF2).

      • nicce 6 days ago |
        The whole OS is a blackbox. We trust that keyloggers are not everywhere. We need to trust completely or not at all. I think there is nothing between when the same vendor also supplying the underlying closed-source OS.
        • hello0904 6 days ago |
          Agreed. But we are talking encryption and why there isn't open source algorithms for iCloud. I find it funny as when you submit iOS apps to the App Store they specifically require encryption standards and no "roll your own algos/cryptos" but at the same time all their crypto is a black box.

          I'm a happy Apple user, love the OS...just saying.

          • lapcat 6 days ago |
            > when you submit iOS apps to the App Store they specifically require encryption standards and no "roll your own algos/cryptos"

            This is not true.

      • chrisBob 6 days ago |
        > Best practices for password storage use one-way hash functions (like bcrypt, Argon2, or PBKDF2) rather than encryption algorithms like AES.

        That is true if you are running a service that USES passwords. In that case you just need to confirm they match. That is not true if you are running a password manager where the user needs to be able to get their plain text password back out of the system.

      • threeseed 6 days ago |
        Keychain is documented here and is encrypted using AES-256-GCM:

        https://support.apple.com/en-au/guide/security/secb0694df1a/...

        It’s then stored in iCloud as a SQLite file and encrypted as it does for your other synced data.

  • Veen 6 days ago |
    This may be annoying, but it’s uploading encrypted versions of passwords, not passwords themselves. Keychain is end-to-end encrypted so no one else can read them.
    • quyleanh 6 days ago |
      Are you sure Apple can’t read them too?
      • Veen 6 days ago |
        They say they can’t, but it’s impossible to be certain. Although, if you distrust Apple enough to think they might lie about it, you probably wouldn’t want to use any Apple device or services. They already have privileged access to the software and hardware.
        • create-username 6 days ago |
          Yes. SIP means Apple is the real sudo now. You can’t disable their special relationship on their computers
        • realusername 6 days ago |
          > They already have privileged access to the software and hardware.

          The fact that the phone manufacturer has a more privileged access than the owner of the phone is absolute insanity.

          • robertlagrant 6 days ago |
            That's pretty normal, isn't it? Do you have more privileged access to your phone than its kernel does?
            • realusername 6 days ago |
              I'd prefer it to work like a normal computer where there's a separation of the OS and the hardware. But sure, other phones aren't better.
              • robertlagrant 6 days ago |
                I'm not sure I've used any operating system where I have more privilege than the kernel does.
                • cassianoleal 6 days ago |
                  You can escalate your privilege if you can freely choose which kernel to run. Maybe you won’t have _more_ privilege than the kernel but you would certainly have as much.
                  • robertlagrant 4 days ago |
                    I can escalate my privilege to be higher than the kernel's?
        • lapcat 6 days ago |
          > Although, if you distrust Apple enough to think they might lie about it, you probably wouldn’t want to use any Apple device or services.

          It's not even about lies. It's about bugs and vulnerabilities, which every vendor has.

          • privacyking 6 days ago |
            I'm considered switching to Mac from linux and I came across your blog which has been very informative. What made you chose mac over linux?
            • lapcat 6 days ago |
              I didn't choose Mac over Linux. I chose Mac over Windows in the year 2002, and I became a Mac developer in 2006. Things were a lot different back then. Now it's too late for me, because my entire livelihood depends on Mac.
              • privacyking 6 days ago |
                Fair enough, I guess you are overall happy with the OS though
              • mcsniff 6 days ago |
                Not throwing shade here on your decision, but that's still choosing Mac over Linux and every day you continue to make that choice.

                It's a perfectly fine decision, but Linux was, and still is, an option for plenty of people who develop for Apple hardware/software without daily driving it, myself included.

                • lapcat 6 days ago |
                  > Linux was, and still is, an option for plenty of people who develop for Apple hardware/software without daily driving it, myself included.

                  Well, I believe in dogfooding. I don't think it would be good for my software or my customers if I didn't use the same operating system as them. Besides, work-related activities are mostly what I use a computer for, so I'm not sure what I would even do with Linux.

                  • mcsniff 6 days ago |
                    You'd be more in control over having your passwords silently uploaded to a third party without your knowledge or consent, for starters.

                    Again, full respect for your decisions, but there are consequences to them and as your blog and experience shows, they are numerous and have serious impacts.

                    • lapcat 6 days ago |
                      Me: work-related activities are mostly what I use a computer for, so I'm not sure what I would even do with Linux.

                      You: You'd be more in control over having your passwords silently uploaded to a third party without your knowledge or consent

                      If I mostly use a computer for work purposes, what do you think my passwords are for?

                      Also, I've been using a Mac since 2002, and iCloud Keychain got toggled on in 2024. It's kind of absurd to suggest, in 20/20 hindsight, that I should have expected it.

                      • mcsniff 6 days ago |
                        Not sure where or what "work passwords" has to do with it, passwords are passwords especially if you're running your own business, which it seems you are.

                        Do your thing buddy, but I'm not the one who had their (work) passwords were silently uploaded to iCloud without permission.

                        • lapcat 6 days ago |
                          > Not sure where or what "work passwords" has to do with it

                          How many times do I have to explain that I use a computer mostly to do work, which is development of Apple software, requiring a Mac, and therefore most of my computer usage is necessarily on a Mac. Consequently, switching to a Linux machine as a "daily driver" is pointless, because I have nothing much to "drive" daily except my work.

      • blitzar 6 days ago |
        Are you sure AES 256-bit hasn't been broken?
        • hello0904 6 days ago |
          Best practices for password storage use one-way hash functions (like bcrypt, Argon2, or PBKDF2) rather than encryption algorithms like AES. AES is not one way and in theory you can generate 2nd, 3rd, etc. master keys to decrypt. :)
          • ethangk 6 days ago |
            That’s relevant when storing a users password to verify that they’ve entered the correct data, but password managers (which Keychain effectively is, I believe) need to be able to retrieve the original password
            • hello0904 6 days ago |
              Frankly, you're confusing hashing algorithms, encryption and "IDs".

              Authentication: "Prove you are you" (hash functions)

              Secure Storage: "Keep this secret but let me get it back later" (encryption)

              Identification: "Track who/what this is" (UUIDs/tokens)

              • stouset 6 days ago |
                You are deeply confused as to how password managers work.

                Password managers—all password managers—require stored passwords to be encrypted such that they can be decrypted. Otherwise they would have no possibly way to retrieve the stored secret for the sake of submitting it to the verifying party.

                Best practice for verifiers is to use a one-way memory-hard password hash.

                Keychain is a password manager.

              • ziddoap 6 days ago |
                >Secure Storage: "Keep this secret but let me get it back later" (encryption)

                This is what keychain does. You retrieve the passwords later.

                So, no. It is not a one-way hash function as you stated.

          • kstrauser 6 days ago |
            A thought experiment:

            Use Argon2 to hash a password before storing it in the password manager. Now the user visits that website and wants to log in. What is it that the password manager pastes into the login form?

            Answer: the plaintext password. But how do you get that out of the hashed value you stored earlier? You don’t. Ergo, password managers cannot use hashing functions to store their contents.

        • netdevnet 6 days ago |
          They own the OS. They don't need to break it to access your passwords
          • VMtest 6 days ago |
            I am not sure if you are ignorant or what, but GP obviously means someone else other than Apple
            • netdevnet 6 days ago |
              It means Apple. See: "Are you sure Apple can’t read them too?".

              Next time you insult someone, better use your cognition powers to avoid looking like that which you call others

              • VMtest 5 days ago |
                My bad, I didn't mean to insult you. I meant it as a criticism

                By GP, u/blitzar's comment, my cognition tells me that his comment meant anyone can break AES 256-bit encryption, including Apple, but in this context, he could have meant everyone else

        • threeseed 6 days ago |
          Note that you have to break 3 independent levels of AES encryption.

          One for password key column, one for value column and one for the password file.

    • kevincox 6 days ago |
      End-to-end encrypted but Apple issues the keys when you log in and I don't think they offer any way to require explicit verification of new devices.
      • mabedan 6 days ago |
        When importing the passwords into a new devices you’re required to enter the device password of whatever device created the password initially.

        Still no proof that there’s no back door, but as far as the system on the surface goes, it does make sense.

        • kevincox 6 days ago |
          Oh, I didn't notice that. I guess this is using their hosted HSMs to do the PIN check? Otherwise it would be trivial to brute force. But if they are using hosted then I think it can be considered a proper E2EE system.
    • avazhi 6 days ago |
      If they are uploading the PW and not the hash then… they are uploading the passwords themselves, encrypted or not.

      And guess who has the decryption keys…?

      • threeseed 6 days ago |
        Of course. Apple has to decrypt the passwords when it pre-fills the browser.

        And the decryption keys are stored on your devices in the Secure Enclave. Apple doesn’t have the keys on their servers.

        • avazhi 6 days ago |
          Either way the passwords are being uploaded, which is the comment I was replying to.
          • Veen 6 days ago |
            The ciphertext is not the plaintext (obviously). So an encrypted password is not a password. An encrypted password is a string resulting from the application of an encryption algorithm and a key to a password. Uploading that string is not uploading the password.

            The fact that Apple's software can access the keys stored on the device to decrypt the password after you securely authenticate is neither here nor there.

          • Klonoar 6 days ago |
            Your response implied something that is outright incorrect, which is what is at issue here.
    • leephillips 6 days ago |
      How do you know?
      • misja111 6 days ago |
        Why do you want to know?
        • barrkel 6 days ago |
          Indeed, why would you want to know if the keys to your correspondence, bank accounts, investment logins, crypto fortune, backup OTP codes or whatever you might be using a password for, are sent in the clear to a third party.
      • gruez 6 days ago |
        https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651

        >Passwords and Keychain (6): End-to-end

        • leephillips 6 days ago |
          I understand that Apple claims that this is the case. But given their history of incompetence in the past, that claim affords me little confidence that their closed source software does not contain critical bugs that might lead to recording or exposing the users’ plaintext passwords.
          • acdha 6 days ago |
            “History of incompetence” really needs some citations, especially for the belief that open source tools are better - they had Gotofail but OpenSSL had Heartbleed, etc. One of the better questions to ask is not how the source code is managed but how it’s audited: there’s a long history of problems in both open and closed software but well audited codebases tend to have them patched before exploits are publicly available.
            • leephillips 6 days ago |
              > “History of incompetence” really needs some citations

              Here’s a big one: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2007/11/be-cautious-of-that-...

              The article contains few details. More insight is at the discussion on https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?p=34430700

              Briefly, when implementing file moving in (closed source) Finder code, someone at Apple who was apparently a beginner programmer or student intern made an elementary error that reliably destroyed files. The system already had a battle-tested mv command in its BSD subsystem, but they didn’t use that code. The point of this story (and, yes, there is a large handful of similar stories) is what it tells you about Apple’s culture and practices around testing, care, and concern for real soundness and quality (as opposed to appearance).

              • Klonoar 6 days ago |
                Something from almost 20 years ago doesn’t quite work the way you think it does.

                Apple does take this stuff seriously. Implying otherwise is just absurd.

              • acdha 6 days ago |
                So you’re saying that having a data loss condition 17 years ago which only affected a subset of users who lost their storage connection in the middle of a move operation tells us something about their products today? Does that also mean that I shouldn’t use Linux because ReiserFS lost data on local storage in some cases back then, or btrfs did so more recently?

                What policy are you saying we should use to evaluate software? In particular, what’s left if we’re saying it’s no longer good enough to have learned from mistakes? I supported a lab full of computational scientists who heavily used their Macs with external storage at that time and this caused no problems for anyone, so I also am looking for something more quantitative like whether a bug which only affected handful of users disqualifies usage for everyone.

            • lightedman 5 days ago |
              "“History of incompetence” really needs some citations"

              Former Apple tech, G3/G4 iBook/PowerBook days. Crates of logic boards shipped in - most static-killed due to sand inside the crates. These were supposed to be used for repairing units that failed fresh from the manufacturing line.

              NVRAM consistently killed itself.

              Let me get out of my date of professional work in Apple repair - Trashcan Mac Pro - That one was very incompetently-designed given how badly people wanted to upgrade it and just could not due to space and thermal constraints.

              One of my friends about 4 years ago bought an iMac, 24" model. FIVE RMAs due to hard drive failing. They kept replacing it with the same drive brand and type, and likely from the same manufacturing batch, because that's an INSANELY high RMA rate for a single unit for the same piece of hardware.

              And that's just MY horror stories, and only from the HARDWARE perspective.

              And Cashmere, Apple's diag software, was a total piece of crap that couldn't tell you half of what was truly wrong with the system. So there's a bit of software horror for ya. Most Apple techs were shooting blind unless it was a specific problem. And the poor OS imaging techs - it's fun having school system laptops that are LOCKED to a specific OSX version and can NOT be upgraded. Not for security, NOTHING. You have to install that specific image for that specific school district, and ship it out. The machines can not be upgraded on the OS side. What a security nightmare that must have been.

              Shall I keep going? I'm sure if I thought hard enough I could find more incompetence which I hated while working as an Apple repair tech.

  • betimsl 6 days ago |
    They probably encrypt the export with some kind of hash that is then securely transported to the new machine, decrypt it and import.

    Maybe someone can reverse engineer, attach a debugger and confirm, or analyze the traffic with a Transparent MITM Proxy on the new machine. Just grep for your password in the traffic captured, should be easy.

    And then write a blog post about that. Let's see what happens.

    • axoltl 6 days ago |
      Or you could read their published security guide at https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-sec...

      For the May 2024 version the section on iCloud Keychain is on page 158.

      • betimsl 5 days ago |
        I'm not in this field so I don't have time to read these documents. But I checked it out, and...from my understanding the document describes that they can't see your passwords because they do on device export+encrypt and new device decrypt+import.

        Is it like that in reality? Should be easy to confirm with a MITM Transparent Proxy, someone should try to find out. Just out of curiosity.

        It's exciting to find a company like Apple making a mistake, and they do make mistakes, but boy do they have quality software and it's getting better by the day. Just have a look at their SDK and interfaces: uniform and practical.

  • ellisv 6 days ago |
    Apple refers to this as escrow and is a feature* of their secure iCloud Keychain recovery.

    [*] They consider it a feature; you may not.

    [1] https://support.apple.com/guide/security/secure-icloud-keych...

    [2] https://support.apple.com/guide/security/escrow-security-for...

  • lapcat 6 days ago |
    A crucial point to understand: unbeknownst to me, my passwords ended up on a device that I didn't specifically authorize to download them.

    The good news is that the device is owned by me and under my control. However, since it's just a test machine with no personal data—or so I believed—it's less protected than my other devices. For example, it has a weak login password, no Filevault, and no biometrics (Mac mini).

    In general, the presence of my passwords in the cloud is an unwanted and unnecessary liability for me. I understand that for other people, cloud storage is a benefit, and I don't wish to deprive them of that choice. Nonethless, Apple deprived me of a choice in this case.

    • tonyedgecombe 6 days ago |
      > Apple deprived me of a choice in this case.

      Settings -> Apple ID -> iCloud -> iCloud Passwords & Keychain -> Sync this Mac

      In general though having a weak password on a device logged in to iCloud is a bad idea.

      • lapcat 6 days ago |
        > Settings -> Apple ID -> iCloud -> iCloud Passwords & Keychain -> Sync this Mac

        You clearly didn't even read the article. The whole point was that Apple silently toggled this on without my knowledge or consent.

        • falcolas 6 days ago |
          So do Chrome and Firefox. If you sign into them, they download your saved passwords which were uploaded to their clouds.
          • squidgedcricket 6 days ago |
            You don't have to sign into browsers. You don't even need an apple ID, I use a local account on my macbook.

            It's not the happy path though. We need a tech a company that prioritizes local-first designs.

            • falcolas 6 days ago |
              At least with Chrome (and stock chromium, IIRC), you don't have to sign into the browser. If you sign into any Google property, the browser will use that auth to log you in.

              Firefox does not, but it sure prompts the hell out of you to do so.

              • lapcat 6 days ago |
                In Chrome Settings, You and Google, Sync and Google services, there's a toggle "Allow Chrome sign-in", which says "By turning this off, you can sign in to Google sites like Gmail without signing in to Chrome".
                • falcolas 6 days ago |
                  Sure. But it's on by default, isn't it? Just like Apple's upload is on by default.

                  Also, chromebooks require such a sign-in as well, and I'll bet they enable that syncing by default as well.

                  Singling out Apple here is kinda silly when they're encrypted (if you don't trust Apple to tell the truth there, running their OS at all is risky), and when the behavior is that which we'd expect.

                  And at the end of the day, using Apple's password manager is mostly (exceptions including wifi passwords) optional.

                  • lapcat 6 days ago |
                    > Just like Apple's upload is on by default.

                    The blog post is about how it was off and then got silently toggled on.

                    > Singling out Apple here

                    I'm not a journalist covering tech companies. I'm an Apple user complaining about something that happened on my own Apple devices. It's silly to characterize that as "singling out Apple".

                    I do use Chrome, though, and it never silently switched that toggle back on. If it did, I'd definitely blog about that.

            • EasyMark 5 days ago |
              Why wouldn't you use local solutions for that? There is no profitability in that for companies and a lot of headaches to maintain another solution that they are just going to see as a money-sink. Companies pretty much -have- to provide a password solution on a modern OS, but they don't have to provide 2. It will have to be done by you with something like KeepassXC or Vaultwarden or something.
          • mafuy 6 days ago |
            I think firefox asked me what I want to sync
            • EasyMark 5 days ago |
              It does, and you can configure it at any point, per browser, but it's just a click box. Someone could come in behind you and click on password I think to sync up passwords. Maybe it should ask for your sync password if you do that? It doesn't seem to right now, I just changed it with no complaints. That said I only keep unimportant passwords in firefox as a convenience, banking etc go in bitwarden
        • SoftTalker 6 days ago |
          I disabled all iCloud stuff the first day I had my iPhone. Just checked and it's still off.
        • tonyedgecombe 6 days ago |
          >You clearly didn't even read the article.

          Of course not, I come here for the comments.

    • npteljes 6 days ago |
      >[manufacturer] deprived me of a choice in this case

      This seems to be the industry trend with these remotely managed machines, like Apple or Windows PCs. The update mechanism, for better or worse, takes power from the user and assigns it back to the manufacturer / service provider. It's something that the software world would have considered a Trojan horse some 20 years ago, an extension of control to the end users machine, for someone other than the end user themselves.

      I'm not sure where I'm going with this. What's for sure is that the IT zeitgeist really changed over the decades.

      • adamc 6 days ago |
        Might be good for some "average" user but strikes me as bad for software developers or other folks with particular need for tight control.
        • evoke4908 6 days ago |
          At work, we discovered that our product doesn't work with Windows 11 because Microsoft forcibly installed W11 on our demo machine the night prior.

          If you're curious, it's because the W11 Bluetooth stack is somehow even more broken than W10. Our entirely standard Bluetooth widget can't communicate with W11 PCs and there's really no good way to discover how or why. Bluetooth support is so bad in Windows that I've been assigned to start porting all our software over to Linux. I could go on for hours over this. Windows is so bad.

      • mixmastamyk 6 days ago |
        The war on general purpose computing has already been won, over the average consumer.

        Pray they don’t finish the job. </Vader>

    • mcsniff 6 days ago |
      The device isn't "owned by you and under your control" if your passwords were synced without your doing or permission.
      • lapcat 6 days ago |
        > The device isn't "owned by you and under your control" if your passwords were synced without your doing or permission.

        Why are you being repeatedly, needlessly pedantic? Everyone knows what I meant (including you, who chose to misinterpret). Your other comment was also pointless: "that's still choosing Mac over Linux and every day you continue to make that choice." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42016888

        You can play with your own ultra-strict definitions of "own" and "choose", but please do it in your own mind, and don't pester us with them in these comments. It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

        • eadmund 5 days ago |
          I don’t think that’s a terribly kind response. There’s nothing pedantic about pointing out that as an Apple product user you are not actually in control of the device which is purportedly yours. That’s not an ‘ultra-strict definition’ of control: it’s just what the word means.

          I think that it adds a ton to the conversation to note that using Apple software is a choice. Continuing to use Apple software, even after Apple upload all your passwords to iCloud, is a choice. Not switching to alternatives is a choice.

          Those may all be defensible choices. They may even be correct. But they’re still choices.

          In your particular case, given that you appear to support yourself by selling iOS apps, it probably makes sense to keep using Apple devices. Retraining to write software running on Linux would be work. And few Linux users would buy software anyway.

          But if you ever get tired of using OSes you can’t control on devices you can’t control, and want to write software to do what you want, you might want to come on over to Linux. It’s pretty fun!

          • lapcat 5 days ago |
            > There’s nothing pedantic about pointing out that as an Apple product user you are not actually in control of the device which is purportedly yours. That’s not an ‘ultra-strict definition’ of control: it’s just what the word means.

            No, it's not what the word meant. What a word means depends on context. If I had simply said, "The good news is that the device was in my home under my observation", then the commenter "mcsniff" would have no opportunity to go off on a rant about "ownership" and "control". Or maybe you're going to argue pedantically that it's not "my" home, because I'm a renter? Or would you argue with someone with a mortgage that it's not "your" home, it's the bank's home? That's just pointless pedantry that clarifies nothing and benefits nobody.

            > I think that it adds a ton to the conversation to note that using Apple software is a choice. Continuing to use Apple software, even after Apple upload all your passwords to iCloud, is a choice. Not switching to alternatives is a choice.

            Everything is a choice. Therefore it's a tautology and adds zero to the conversation. Your comment was a choice. My comment is a choice. Choice choice choice choice. So what?

    • claviska 6 days ago |
      I had a similar but more concerning experience. I enabled family sharing (years ago when it was newer) and suddenly my spouse had access to many (all?) of MY passwords in HER keychain. I never knowingly granted access or put any passwords in a non-personal group — it just happened like magic.
    • jesseendahl 6 days ago |
      @lapcat I noticed this part of your post:

      >The only way to see the contents of iCloud Keychain is on an Apple device with iCloud Keychain enabled. You can't even see anything on the icloud.com website.

      FYI this is because of all contents of iCloud Keychain are end-to-end encrypted, such that only your devices are able to decrypt the data. Apple’s servers do not have access to the contents of a user’s iCloud Keychain.

      You might find this article interesting:

      https://support.apple.com/guide/security/icloud-keychain-sec...

      Also the second part of this Blackhat talk, titled “Synchronizing Secrets” is very interesting and details the design and security architecture of iCloud Keychain: https://youtu.be/BLGFriOKz6U

      The relevant part of the talk starts at 22:40.

    • EasyMark 5 days ago |
      wouldn't you assume that if you log into a machine with your apple "cloud" credentials that various programs would sync up? I don't see how it could happen any other way? It would be nice if they had a pop up like they do for app permissions though. Perhaps submit a radar on it as a regular user? https://lickability.com/blog/5-tips-for-filing-radars/
      • retrochameleon 5 days ago |
        No. Not without allowing me to configure what gets synced and what does not.
    • neuralRiot 5 days ago |
      I don’t know if it’s true but when backing up locally via Itunes it warns you that if you don’t encrypt the backup, passwords won’t be saved. I don’t save backups on icloud.
  • neilv 6 days ago |
    All the trust-us data-grabby pushes by Apple products creeped me out, until I finally got rid of their products.

    For example, although I laboriously went through a ton of settings to make it less privacy-invading, I knew, for example, that I was still only one fumbled touch to a piece of glass away from Apple saying, "Oh, hey! I just grabbed all of your photos! Forever!" (Then Apple would say "Thanks!" in a sunny Californian way that normally is not every meaningful, but accidentally takes on meaning in the era of surveillance capitalism and AI training data.)

    • rkagerer 6 days ago |
      What do you use now instead?
      • neilv 6 days ago |
        For smartphone, GrapheneOS.

        For tablet, I was using a PocketBook ereader (which works fine airgapped, and is friendly towards DRM-free ebooks, and doesn't need jailbreaking).

        For most purposes, Debian Stable on my laptop, and on my GPU server.

  • InMice 6 days ago |
    The most obnxious aspect of owning an iphone for me. Apple turns icloud syncing on by default for everything, not just password management. Photos, browsing history etc. there should be an account setting that lets you turn this off completely no matter what device you sign into with your icloud account. Completely obnoxious, my icloud photos is a total mess of triple and double copies of photos going back decades i recently had no idea it was even syncing. All from signing in then having stop automatic syncing. I now only sign in when the device has fresh reset so i can immediately turn all the syncing off. This should be an account wide option that applies to any all current and future device sign ins.
    • musicale 5 days ago |
      I hate default on for cloud sync. It should be opt-in.
      • musicale 4 days ago |
        To clarify, Apple is often good about requiring opt-in for a bunch of features, especially privacy-related features, and I appreciate that. Unfortunately there are some annoying corner cases, such as having to manually disable iCloud sync for photos (etc.), or the issue that OP ran into with having iCloud keychain re-enable itself after being turned off. It also used to be easier to actually turn off wi-fi and bluetooth without them reactivating automatically. I understand why they made it harder (to reduce complaints and support calls/appointments for AirDrop/AirPods/Apple watch/etc. not working due to user settings) but I would have preferred an alternative approach of making it simple and obvious how to fix any AirDrop or other issues while preserving the ability to easily turn off wi-fi.
  • rkagerer 6 days ago |
    The blurring distinction between local and cloud has gotten so bad that not even a nerd can tell if their device is respecting the privacy border.
    • atoav 6 days ago |
      It begins with the choice of operating system. Getting Windows/OSX to not phone home is one thing, ensuring it stays that way as the updates come in is another can of worms entirely.
    • hhh 5 days ago |
      It’s pretty easy in macos, you turn off the features explicitly labeled as such in the nice icloud settings menu, or you never log into icloud in the first place
  • thunky 5 days ago |
    Passwords should be going the way of the dodo anyway.

    They've been mostly reduced to single-use tokens thanks to password change policies.

    And they're no better than email verification codes, which can be used to change the password anyway.