4 ms·

I'm shocked at how many defenders pop up here for a proprietary chip that cannot be audited. Sure, this hardware/firmware combo might be safe. It also might be

I'm shocked at how many defenders pop up here for a proprietary chip that cannot be audited. Sure, this hardware/firmware combo might be safe. It also might be terrible, but no one on this thread actually knows either way. It is also vulnerable in ways that a magnetic lid switch would never be. The T2 is the single most important attack target (for desktops) now for large budget attackers. I wonder how long until the HN headline reads T2 vulnerability found.

RidingPegasus 8y ago
Was also slightly bemused. Especially the comments saying a physical switch is too expensive? An inlaid switch would cost a few cents and apart from physical tampering will always work. With Apple's design skills I doubt many would even see it. People who boldly guarantee a products security are doomed to relearn history.
- solatic 8y ago
  > will always work Unless the user forgets to use the switch. Cue the XKCD comic about $5 wrenches breaking strong crypto. The deeper philosophical question is whether to build, to quote the Arch Way, user-friendly or user-centric products (and, consequently, security). It should surprise nobody that Apple values user-friendly design over user-centric design. Fwiw I also would prefer an inlaid physical switch.