4 ms·
But you just moved the goal-posts from a discussion about whether the implementation was faulty (and Apple was misleading their product owners) to one about whe
by NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
But you just moved the goal-posts from a discussion about whether the implementation was faulty (and Apple was misleading their product owners) to one about whether the design compromises are right.
Apple claims that the LED comes on when the camera is active, which it claims helps protect your privacy. That seems to be true, and certainly no-one seems to have any contradictory examples that are not 12+ years old.
I can argue that when one uses a sliding cover, one can easily forget to reset it after a video chat. The design is bad. The right solution is simply not to have a camera. It's just a different design compromise.
- causality0 6y agoThe question is whether this is a firmware implementation that's just waiting for a 0-day or if the +V for the CMOS sensor is literally wired to the LED. If the latter I'd like to see a picture of it.
- ISL 6y agoSomeone out there can buy a broken MacBook off eBay and score some YouTube notoriety to do this very investigation. Bonus points for using a Sawzall to get started.
- zndr 6y agoIt isn't the led is physically slaved to the power of the camera, the previous version was firmware fixed and was hacked, hence the change.
- axoltl 6y agoHi! I was the security architect for this feature on recent Macs. The LED is wired to the camera PMIC and is powered by the voltage rail that powers the camera. The PMIC will always remain on if the system has power. Macs newer than 4 or so years also have a feature that forces the LED to stay lit for at least 3 seconds after it has been turned on to prevent the single-frame-grab attack.
- dasudasu 6y agoSo you have to perpetually watch out for the LED indicator to see if it ever randomly turns on for 3 seconds? And what if it does come up unexpectedly? At this point it's too late and you've already been captured. A mechanical cover that can slide on and off the camera seems like much better security.
- valuearb 6y agoExcept that people will forget to use them
- mthoms 6y agoYou don't "have to" do anything. The point is that the hardware has been designed properly. Combined with the OS-level permissions, it should be assurance enough for the majority of use cases. If you need further assurances, then by all means, use a physical cover.
- dasudasu 6y agoThe claim was that single-frame grab attempts are prevented by an indicator that stays on for 3 seconds. First, you do have to be alert for all of these potential 3 seconds windows, and second, it doesn't prevent anything but only tell you that it has already happened.
- saagarjha 6y agoNo, it wasn't. The claim was whether it was implemented correctly, as the entire conversation started with examples where it was not implemented correctly.
- smsm42 6y agoProperly designed hardware would add one small - and in every way possible, since we've already identified the circuit that drives the single power source - addition. A physical switch that prevents camera from being turned on. Same for the microphone. Unfortunately, this is never done. So people put covers on.
- Closi 6y agoThis blogpost claims to have a message from an apple engineer stating that it’s now hardware level: https://daringfireball.net/2019/02/on_covering_webcams https://daringfireball.net/2019/02/on_covering_webcams
- 1-more 6y agoAccording to an anonymous Gruber source, Apple fixed the issue by tying the led to the Vsync on the camera board. I have not found a teardown or anything other than this confirming it https://daringfireball.net/2019/02/on_covering_webcams https://daringfireball.net/2019/02/on_covering_webcams