9 ms·
> The chip comes with a hardware microphone disconnect feature that physically cuts the device’s microphone from the rest of the hardware whenever the lid is cl
by davnicwil 8y ago
> The chip comes with a hardware microphone disconnect feature that physically cuts the device’s microphone from the rest of the hardware whenever the lid is closed
Why do you need a chip for this? Can't you just break the circuit with a regular dumb physical switch? Or is this a much more complex problem than it first appears?
- slededit 8y agoWho controls the switch? You need an entire secure system distinct from the untrusted CPU - or a manual switch on the side. The latter goes against everything Apple believes in design wise.
- davnicwil 8y agoI'm suggesting the lid could control the switch, physically, as in when you close it the mic's circuit is broken.
- slededit 8y agoYea that could work. I think this is cheaper for them surprisingly enough. Switches are expensive.
- 542458 8y agoExpensive and failure-prone!
- lstodd 8y agoJust put a magnet-actuated switch into the mic itself and a magnet in the corresponding place in the body - problem solved. Nothing to break, zero attack surface, what's not to like?
- kondro 8y agoExcept the magnet-actuated switch for each mic.
- lstodd 8y agoThose are rated for over hundreds of millions of switching cycles. They would be the last thing that breaks in a laptop. But if you're so against moving parts, a hall sensor and a transistor would achieve the same result.
- dpkonofa 8y agoOr, you know, they could use a chip that they're already putting into the device (like the T2) and not have to use additional components. Same end result without the extra parts.
- lstodd 8y agoAnd an unknown and unknowable attack surface. At least with the switch if the mic doesn't work you just check for magnets around it and that's it.
- xvector 8y agoI'd argue the T2 chip is actually more secure than your method. Magnets can be removed. The T2 chip cannot. Not without rendering the computer unusable and the data irrecoverable. The chip provides a hardware disconnect for the microphone, just like your idea. Except it's baked into the silicon instead of an additional large part in the body of the computer. Regardless, if your attack model is "T2 chip is compromised", all bets are off. Worrying about the microphone would be the absolute least of your concerns. All your local and iCloud data can now be decrypted, your 2FA is compromised, so on and so forth. The T2 chip and Secure Enclave provide the strongest security guarantees in today's computers and mobile devices respectively. I'm not worried about a compromise of the T2 chip, to be honest.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> the lid could control the switch Doing it on a chip sounds more reliable than adding a moving part.
- sjwright 8y agoAnd sounds more scalable too, if they wanted to start applying the same principle to other components like accelerometers, light sensors etc. The point (it seems) of the T2 chip is that it's isolated from the main system and has far fewer opportunities for exploitation, while leveraging efforts already expended for the iPhone. In my mind the eventual goal of the T1 / T2 etc chip line will be to do everything for a Mac that an iPhone does—storage, webcam control and encoding, audio in/out, fingerprint reader, sensors, battery monitoring, power management etc—and then expose it all to the main system en masse.
- Johnny555 8y agoAnd sounds more scalable too, if they wanted to start applying the same principle to other components like accelerometers, light sensors etc. Is it easier the "turn off" signal from the T2 chip to each device to be turned off than it is to route the "turn off" signal from the lid closed switch/sensor to each device. Why does it have to pass through the T2 chip first?
- MBCook 8y agoBut that would mean you can’t use the built-in microphone when actively using the computer in clamshell mode.
- anticensor 8y ago[sarcasm="true"]bit-bangs the lid servo [/sarcasm]
- imran3740 8y agoWhat about a physical killswitch goes against Apple's design? The iPhone has always had a ringer/vibrate switch on its side since it was introduced. Obviously it doesn't do anything hardware-wise, but it's still a switch that disables some functionality.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- slededit 8y agoThat has a common use case of not wanting your phone ringing in a meeting. People expect their computers not to listen to them when not actively using the mic. Your switch is the program that records you, a second is redundant and confusing.
- IBM 8y agoAlmost all of Apple's security features are invisible and by default and don't get in the way. They're striking the balance between user experience and security.
- Spooky23 8y agoIt’s a part that when it fails is probably a motherboard replacement ($), and it fails often because people.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- GuB-42 8y agoThere is already a lid closed sensor. Adding another mechanical switch is more expensive, adds another point of failure, takes space, may interfere with the aesthetics, etc... The T2 chip probably also acts as a controller for a lot of the builtin sensors, including the microphone and lid closed switch. As a result, adding a feature to turn off the microphone when the lid is closed becomes trivial. Basically just add a logic gate between the two.
- pulse7 8y agoPhysical switch could be made INSIDE the laptop and would be automatically pressed by the lid itself - when the lid is closed. No sensors needed. No chip needed. When lid is closed - mic is disconnected. When opened - mic is connected... User does not need to do anything else then closing the lid...
- modzu 8y agotoo easy to fix if it breaks
- alphabettsy 8y agoA switch is more likely to break than a sensor and there’s already one for closed lid.
- modzu 8y agotheres just no lolz round here
- ridgeguy 8y agoPhysical switch could be done with a very small magnet behind the lid surface and an opposed micro-reed switch (or other magnetically actuated on/off device) buried behind the body surface. No surface penetrations, no exposed moving parts (reed relays are hermetically sealed).
- 8y ago
- sschueller 8y agoBecause a physical switch would actually provide security. /s Any bug or future exploit negates this feature. I have the feeling this was just done because it was possible and then the marketing team found out about it and decided to make a big deal out of it.
- threeseed 8y agoSo someone from Apple engineering built the T2 chip on a whim, never communicated it to senior management and then marketing accidentally stumbled upon it and then decided to suddenly promote it. Words don't describe how delusional this is.
- Digital-Citizen 8y agoYou don't need a chip for this. And to their credit Librem laptops have offered such a hardware switch for a while now (perhaps since they began selling laptops) with (as I understand it) no chipset involved. Putting this functionality into a computer chip is ridiculous and unnecessary partially because there's no clear way for ordinary non-technical users to control that, and partially because this suggests that software (as I presume the software on this new chip will be alterable by Apple) can still affect whether the mic is hot. The headline "Apple's T2 chip will prevent hackers from eavesdropping on your microphone" should probably be interpreted to mean that Apple won't be prevented from listening in. Camera access and wireless network access should also be physically disconnectable via a simple user-controlled piece of hardware which electrically disconnecting the on-board webcam and wireless network device from the rest of the system -- a slider or rocker switch. This too is something I understand Librem laptops offer but is uncommon elsewhere.
- xvector 8y agoIf your threat model includes "I don't trust Apple", then all discussion is moot. You could provide all the hardware killswitches you want. Apple could still design a way around them to get your data while the laptop is active. Now, if you trust Apple, the T2 chip is perfectly secure for this use case. Apple claims this serves as a hardware disconnect baked into the silicon, in which case it is no different from a mechanical switch. Finally, the whole argument about user control over various security features is interesting. I will say that Apple has, better than any other manufacturer, struck almost perfectly the balance between security and usability. Apple's software/hardware security does its job, does it well, and gets out of your way. Including 20 different hardware switches and 150 different security settings that mean nothing to the average user would not be in their design language. It's all about your threat model. Perhaps yours is a bit too severe to use traditional consumer devices.
- Digital-Citizen 8y agoYou're missing the point (as are the moderators, apparently): trust is a factor only when it comes to proprietary software. If you have to "trust Apple" to deal with Apple software, then you've lost any reason to trust them as they've already shown that they ought not be trusted -- both in principle (by distributing proprietary software) and in specific examples as per https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.html (only some of which aren't Apple's fault but merely run on Apple-made OSes, and some of which include bad business practices by Apple). Buying into claims ought not be needed and isn't needed except for proprietary software where such trust is apparently often misplaced. You can't tell if "the T2 chip is perfectly secure for this use case" because you don't know what runs on it. Apple claims a lot of things and one had good reason to believe Apple wouldn't, for instance, leave a remotely-exploitable vulnerability in iTunes unfixed for years after being notified about that vulnerability while governments exploited that vulnerability. But according to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8912714/Apple-iTunes-flaw-allowed-government-spying-for-3-years.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8912714/Apple-iT... that's what Apple did. If Apple distributed free software trusting Apple wouldn't enter into the discussion. We could inspect what Apple distributed, we'd be allowed to change what we don't like about the software Apple distributed to us, and we could distribute improved versions of that software to help others. No need to buy into uninspectable code we're not allowed to change or distribute further. And the answer to the question you didn't answer which the original poster asked -- do you need a chip to do this task -- remains "no". Purism's hardware is proof by existence. With Purism's hardware switch there's no software involved to accomplish this feature and they (as far as I know) distribute a free software distro called "PureOS" (a GNU/Linux system) which also happens to have earned an FSF-approved distro entry.
- christophilus 8y agoBecause you may want to configure it. I close my laptop when it’s attached to an external monitor. The mic should stay on in that instance.
- function_seven 8y agoThat would defeat the purpose wouldn’t it? Malware would also configure it.
- dpkonofa 8y agoMalware doesn't have access to the T2. Presumably, the T2 is configurable separately from the rest of the hardware or anything else the system would have access to.
- craftyguy 8y agoUnless specifics about the implementation are public, it's safer to say "...until it (malware) does have access to the T2" in response to your comment.
- bunnycorn 8y agoThe Secure Enclave has been around since the 2013 and never was infected with malware and it was not for the lack of trying.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- blihp 8y agoYou can't patent a dumb physical switch. That and the fact that the tech industry has moved so far away from even caring about users problems that it's now busy devising cool new solutions to the problems it created for them. Seriously, putting cameras and mics in every device and then creating web browsers which potentially have access to them at all times? Yeah, I'm most worried about what happens when I close the lid.
- dr_teh 8y agoSo that they can trigger it to spy on you, duh
- vbezhenar 8y agoThis might prevent Apple from eavesdropping on your microphone.
- kumarvvr 8y agoWhy not just give users a physical switch to turn on power to the mic when they require it?
- apricot 8y agoExtra physical switches on an Apple product?