4 ms·

Opinion: FaceTime for Android and Windows could make it the new default

1 points by clairity 7y ago

floatingatoll 7y ago
FaceTime and iMessage are resilient against spam because Apple requires them to authenticate using a hardware-specific token that can be banned independent of which iCloud account is being used. It is extremely expensive to try and spam on Apple’s services as a result, which is a competitive feature in today‘s free-for-all marketplace. Opening them up for non-Apple devices would introduce the same problems with spam and malicious attackers that we see with telephone calls and public Zoom meetings today. Without the hardware-locked identity enforcement, FaceTime would be a garbage bin of endless spam calls to everyone everyday. It seems unlikely that Apple will take any such step, as no one has yet offered a solution that provides for defense against spam that functions without hardware identity verification.
- clairity 7y ago
  interesting point! i seem to dimly remember reading in the past that both android and windows hardware does have some provisions for hardware signing/identification that might be used in this regard?
  - floatingatoll 7y ago
    Android and Windows allows users to root the device, which means that you can’t trust any output generated by the device and sent over the network to have truly originated from the device. You’d have to process the FaceTime network traffic using a trusted enclave on the device that can’t be intercepted or altered by the user, even if they have root/kernel access, which would imply a TPM that can intercept network traffic at the hardware layer and runs third-party code. There are hackintosh instructions for doing this, to address the obvious weakness in the point; and those instructions simply require access to a Mac that hasn’t been banned for being misused to generate authorizations for use on other hardware. Apple seems to detect them and ban them occasionally, so it clearly isn’t foolproof. The trick here is to find a way to build a secure authentication method that cannot be altered by someone who physically possesses the device, which goes against the grain of the “my hardware, my right to modify” crowd quite strongly. It’s a hard problem to solve.
    - clairity 7y ago
      that makes sense, thanks. not to belabor the point, but what about segmenting/tagging network traffic through a TPM or a user-controlled pathway? then you could route facetime through the TPM-mediated pathway and the rest through the user-controlled one (assuming cost isn't prohibitive).
      - floatingatoll 7y ago
        And then you’d just need PC and Android hardware to incorporate a pathway for that purpose, running an Apple-provided binary that they have no authority over, because no way would Apple concede that to e.g. Google. You’re not belaboring the point at all. Nearly no one knows about that little corner aspect, and then goes through this full line of reasoning. I’m just glad for one more considering it.

1 points by clairity 7y ago

FaceTime and iMessage are resilient against spam because Apple requires them to authenticate using a hardware-specific token that can be banned independent of which iCloud account is being used. It is extremely expensive to try and spam on Apple’s services as a result, which is a competitive feature in today‘s free-for-all marketplace. Opening them up for non-Apple devices would introduce the same problems with spam and malicious attackers that we see with telephone calls and public Zoom meetings today. Without the hardware-locked identity enforcement, FaceTime would be a garbage bin of endless spam calls to everyone everyday. It seems unlikely that Apple will take any such step, as no one has yet offered a solution that provides for defense against spam that functions without hardware identity verification.

clairity 7y ago
interesting point! i seem to dimly remember reading in the past that both android and windows hardware does have some provisions for hardware signing/identification that might be used in this regard?
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  Android and Windows allows users to root the device, which means that you can’t trust any output generated by the device and sent over the network to have truly originated from the device. You’d have to process the FaceTime network traffic using a trusted enclave on the device that can’t be intercepted or altered by the user, even if they have root/kernel access, which would imply a TPM that can intercept network traffic at the hardware layer and runs third-party code. There are hackintosh instructions for doing this, to address the obvious weakness in the point; and those instructions simply require access to a Mac that hasn’t been banned for being misused to generate authorizations for use on other hardware. Apple seems to detect them and ban them occasionally, so it clearly isn’t foolproof. The trick here is to find a way to build a secure authentication method that cannot be altered by someone who physically possesses the device, which goes against the grain of the “my hardware, my right to modify” crowd quite strongly. It’s a hard problem to solve.
  - clairity 7y ago
    that makes sense, thanks. not to belabor the point, but what about segmenting/tagging network traffic through a TPM or a user-controlled pathway? then you could route facetime through the TPM-mediated pathway and the rest through the user-controlled one (assuming cost isn't prohibitive).
    - floatingatoll 7y ago
      And then you’d just need PC and Android hardware to incorporate a pathway for that purpose, running an Apple-provided binary that they have no authority over, because no way would Apple concede that to e.g. Google. You’re not belaboring the point at all. Nearly no one knows about that little corner aspect, and then goes through this full line of reasoning. I’m just glad for one more considering it.