5 ms·
Very important point (re: house key analogy). Houses and cars are 1000% not secure, you can always break a window and get access. That's why they have ARMORED
by ramses0 9y ago
Very important point (re: house key analogy).
Houses and cars are 1000% not secure, you can always break a window and get access. That's why they have ARMORED cars and bank VAULTS or safes.
However, if you break a window, or drill a hole in a safe, there is "visible sign of forced entry".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forcible_entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forcible_entry
When you see a broken window by your front door, when you see a broken window on your car, when you see a hole cut through sheetrock next to your door, or you see your door blasted off it's hinges, you know that the security of the device has been compromised.
That's truly what's missing on device security nowadays: "Signs of Forced Entry" ... number of incorrect password attempts, number of incorrect FaceID / TouchID attempts, etc.
And if your device is rooted or untrusted, then there's often not a good, trusted, visible way to see that security has been actually compromised (as opposed to attempted to be compromised).
- Osmium 9y agoYou raise very good points, but it's not like there aren't ways to break into a house without signs of forced entry. To my mind, privacy is often the most important difference. There are a lot more private things on my phone than in my house, honestly -- a phone these days is often almost an extension of the mind. Which is why we should hold it to a higher standard. I personally have no problems with TouchID/FaceID, I think the secure enclave is great, but I still think there's a lot of room for improvement, better sandboxing of data, better tripwires for when data is accessed/transferred, etc.