4 ms·

https://eclecticlight.co/2017/09/24/high-sierra-automatically-checks-efi-firmware-each-week/ https://eclecticlight.co/2017/09/24/high-sierra-automaticall... Po

https://eclecticlight.co/2017/09/24/high-sierra-automatically-checks-efi-firmware-each-week/ https://eclecticlight.co/2017/09/24/high-sierra-automaticall... Posted to HN over the weekend so few have probably seen it. One user referred to this "feature" as "beyond creepy". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15326924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15326924 Tweets from the developer were quickly removed from Twitter. https://web.archive.org/web/20170924180858/https://twitter.com/xenokovah/status/912011064304267264 https://web.archive.org/web/20170924180858/https://twitter.c... "1. Xeno Kovah(<-) @XenoKovah 17m17 minutes ago More Copy link to Tweet Embed Tweet Replying to @XenoKovah @NikolajSchlej @coreykal A design requirement we were given early on by Privacy was that we can't just scoop up everyone's firmware and send it back for analysis 1. Xeno Kovah(<-) @XenoKovah 15m15 minutes ago More Copy link to Tweet Embed Tweet Replying to @XenoKovah In my perfect world we would have rolled this out way back in 10.12 as just a silent data collector" Once again, remote, "silent data collect[ion]" from all users, in this case from a hidden partition on user-owned hardware, is on by default. Nor is user asked for consent. This is not meant to be "alarmist". EFI is an open specification. Anyone can write EFI applications and anyone can use EFI type partitions for whatever purposes they like, assuming that the computer belongs to them, i.e. they paid for it. EFI usage is not exclusively reserved for companies like Apple. Perhaps if the remote check was on a more familiar partition type where more familiar files are stored, the privacy issue might be better illustrated.

cpr 9y ago
Why do you call it data collection? It's simply ensuring the firmware (which is really part of the hardware--though nothing's "hard" until you get down to the microcode interpreter on the CPU) hasn't been altered. The only "data" collected is: Has this Mac been compromised?
- burnte 9y ago
  It's being called data collection to be alarmist. It's the same thing as the iTerm bug last week. There's a genuine issue that is blown out of proportion by the network-Temperence movement. I agree that this should be an opt-in or at least opt-out thing, collecting anonymous checksums to start to watch for EFI vulnerabilities is a little different form sending Apple your DNA profile to be sold on the human clone black market.

cpr 9y ago

Why do you call it data collection? It's simply ensuring the firmware (which is really part of the hardware--though nothing's "hard" until you get down to the microcode interpreter on the CPU) hasn't been altered. The only "data" collected is: Has this Mac been compromised?

burnte 9y ago
It's being called data collection to be alarmist. It's the same thing as the iTerm bug last week. There's a genuine issue that is blown out of proportion by the network-Temperence movement. I agree that this should be an opt-in or at least opt-out thing, collecting anonymous checksums to start to watch for EFI vulnerabilities is a little different form sending Apple your DNA profile to be sold on the human clone black market.