[brailsafe]

> Any claims about security of apple hardware or software are meaningless. If you actually need a secure device, apple is not an option.

I don't think this is precise, but the constraints seem a bit vague to me. What do you consider to be in the list of secure devices?

[worthless-trash]

I'm not even here to troll, if you can give details on the list and why that'd be awesome

[ddingus]

Seconded

[talldayo]

It's also possible to say "nothing" and just leave it at that. A lot of people are desperate to defend Apple by looking at security from a relative perspective, but today's threats are so widespread that arguably Apple is both accomplice and adversary to many of them. Additionally, their security stance relies on publishing Whitepapers that have never been independently verified to my knowledge, and perpetuating a lack of software transparency on every platform they manage. Apple has also attempted to sue security researchers for enabling novel investigation of iOS and iPadOS, something Google is radically comfortable with on Android.

The fact that Apple refuses to let users bring their own keys, choose their disc encryption, and verify that they are secure makes their platforms no more "safe" than Bitlocker, in a relative sense.

[ddingus]

I do not believe I understand your comment.

Early, you mention people defending Apple security in a relative sense.

Later, you mentioned Apple refusing user actions to verify security makes them no more safe in a relative sense.

Are you just talking about Apple employing security by obscurity?

I just want to understand your point better, or confirm my take is reasonable.

And for anyone reading, for the record I suppose, I do not consider much of anything secure right now. And yes, there are degrees. Fair enough.

I take steps in my own life to manage risk and keep that which needs to be really secure and or private off electronics or at the least off networks.

[m4rtink]

Using fully open hardware and software I guess ?