11 ms·

But can't you specifically wire the indicator light to always be lit if the camera has power? I don't see Apple claiming they've done that but a correct design

But can't you specifically wire the indicator light to always be lit if the camera has power? I don't see Apple claiming they've done that but a correct design would make the indicator light work that way and be related to software at all. Meaning you could only disable the indicator light by physically modifying the device.

ohazi 6y ago
This is the only correct design, yet almost nobody does this. One of the challenges is verifying that this was done correctly. You may be able to verify a design like this once with a teardown, but it's impractical to verify your particular device, and next to impossible to re-verify this every time you leave your laptop unattended.
- foota 6y ago
  My threat model doesn't involve someone disassembling my laptop and rewiring it, at that point they might as well just plant a bug.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    This isn’t speculation. Opening up hardware to modify the internals is something that covert agencies do, and it’s naive to think that the purpose is equivalent to a simple bug. As someone who posts to Hacker News you are by almost any definition a potential information source or APT vector.
    - PascLeRasc 6y ago
      Apple's already addressed this by making their laptops nearly impossible to open up.
      - sjwright 6y ago
        Yes, nearly impossible... unless you spend $5 at Amazon on a screwdriver in which case it’s trivial.
      - inopinatus 6y ago
        I had an Apple on-site support engineer open up a 16” MBP on my kitchen table a couple of weeks ago to replace a cracked screen, and he brought only a small tool roll, a headlamp, and a anti-static work surface and wrist-strap. Took him only a few minutes to strip it down, longer to rebuild and recommission for use. I must add, I peeked over his shoulder a few times, and my comment that it looks as good inside as it does out was answered with “yes, it’s like being asked to restore a work of art”.
        PascLeRasc 6y ago
        I was just trying to make a joke. I've actually been very happy with working on my MBP, it was easier to re-paste than a Dell XPS from the same year. The interior of Macbooks I've seen have been laid out remarkably well.
    - anang 6y ago
      I think what they mean is their threat model is more drive by random attacks rather than concerted efforts by intelligence agencies. For the former a piece of tape is enough.
    - bsder 6y ago
      > This isn’t speculation. He didn't say it was. What he said was that his threat model doesn't include state agencies. Many people use their laptops in bed and they probably don't want random people using their laptop webcam to take random nudes. And, while I hear the NSA being quoted a lot, let's be fair, how many of us have the opsec to stand up to a genuine NSA attack? A reasonable goal in thwarting the NSA should be to stop some random bureaucrat from typing on a few keys and getting access to your stuff without a signature. As long as some bureaucrat has to put their signature on a piece of paper and get budget to get my stuff, I'm safe against random trawling. Besides, if the NSA really wants you, they'll just fabricate the evidence. It's way cheaper.
      - inopinatus 6y ago
        > > This isn’t speculation. > He didn't say it was. They didn’t need to use the word to imply it. I did however assume they’re weren’t so self-centeredly solipsistic as to think that their personal choices were the universal general case, or advisable for a typical participant on this forum. But then: > Besides, if the NSA really wants you, they'll just fabricate the evidence. It's way cheaper. Again, no. That’s another of those “surely this doesn’t happen” comments, and once again, it is flat wrong. Even setting aside that discrediting/compromising someone is likely to be different agency; just as with bugging them, there are still plenty more reasons besides eavesdropping or coercion, such as industrial espionage, or sabotage, and the main point is that this isn’t theoretical. It happens. Deal with it, don’t deal, up to you, but never assume you can’t be a target. This is why I only take a disposable laptop and phone across US or Chinese borders. Both have intelligence services with the resources, ability, and inclination toward systematically documenting anyone even remotely interesting. > As long as some bureaucrat has to put their signature on a piece of paper and get budget to get my stuff, I'm safe against random trawling If this level of willingness to disregard the entire history of bureaucracy and covert action helps you feel safe, and if you have no direct or indirect ties to any other human being, body of data, or corporate entity that could ever be at any kind of risk, then why not I guess.
- _kst_ 6y ago
  My work laptop (a Thinkpad) has a built-in plastic slider that physically covers the camera. If something activates the camera while that cover is closed, it won't see anything.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    Not only that, but this feature is also present in X1, which is plenty thin.
    - mcv 6y ago
      I came here to post exactly this about my X1E. First laptop I've seen that has a builtin slider (though I'm sure there are others).
  - ohazi 6y ago
    I wanted this, but I wanted the WQHD display more. Lenovo didn't allow you to configure a T480 with both the high-resolution display and the plastic slider, it was either-or. The high-resolution display was their premium option that omitted the slider and added two more IR cameras for Windows Hello support. So in addition to not getting the slider, I also had to disable the IR cameras. I'm half tempted to buy the version of the display bezel with the slider and see if it'll fit as a replacement.
- SilasX 6y ago
  Bingo. It's a lot simpler to just allow the user to physically block the lens, which vetoes everything[1], rather than trust or verify that all that stuff is implemented correctly and reliably. [1] Yes, yes, assuming you can block all frequencies the camera is capable of detecting.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
maerF0x0 6y ago
even then there probably should be some minimum "flash" time in that if it turns on and off faster than the LED lights up or human eyes can see then it may still take images faster than we can register? EDIT: a commenter below said "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."
- cgriswald 6y ago
  Frankly, by the time the indicator is noticed, it may be too late. Even with the LED wired in place and a 'feature' (capacitor or software?) forcing it to stay lit for 3 seconds, the damage may be done. It does, at least, let you know an attack occurred. I really think an LED is barking up the wrong tree. A built-in hardware cover would have the same effect as the LED, and no one would have to trust it, since the camera would just be recording the back of the cover if it was hacked in stealth mode.
  - JadeNB 6y ago
    How would you handle the microphone? I don't know any hardware way to make sure my microphone's not hearing me if I can't trust the software.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      A physical electrical on/off switch for the microphone (that actually interrupts the wires going to the mic).
      - JadeNB 6y ago
        Doesn't that require the same kind of trust in the correctness of the wiring that is at issue in some other comments? I can see that a camera cover works, but I think I couldn't see that a physical switch was actually interrupting the wiring without doing a teardown.
        6y ago
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
Sure, but can you guarantee any particular webcam wasn't intercepted and modified before being delivered? Can you guarantee the manufacturer followed the design specification for every batch? Threat models matter.
colordrops 6y ago
Even if they did claim that why should we trust that they did it correctly and without unintentional or intentional vulnerability?
aahhahahaaa 6y ago
This has been the case for quite some time (10 years or so). I've torn apart two Macbooks to specifically test this and the LED is enabled when the camera receives power. It's impossible to disable with software. You can modify the Macbook of course, which is why the paranoid type will still use tape. Some attacks I've seen will take a photo with the camera as fast as possible so you might not notice, but the light will always turn on.
- rovr138 6y ago
  I think newer ones even route it through the T1 chip. Need to look again. There was an exploit, over 10 years ago like you said, that allow to disable it. But that was corrected. Edit - iıSeeYou: Disabling the MacBook Webcam Indicator LED - This was 2008 - https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/36569/camera.pdf https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2... Looking for t1 links. Edit 2 Can't find anything confirming the t1 right now..
  - Godel_unicode 6y ago
    The T chip in modern MacBooks is the T2, and it's certainly used for the mic cutoff. I'm unaware of public disclosures around it's use for the camera. https://support.apple.com/guide/security/hardware-microphone-disconnect-mac-ipad-secbbd20b00b/1/web/1 https://support.apple.com/guide/security/hardware-microphone...
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      On MacBooks the disconnect is done without the T2 being involved.
- fearingreprisal 6y ago
  > It's impossible to disable with software. > iSeeYou ( 2008 ) Which is it?
  - varjag 6y ago
m463 6y ago
In the case of the school district spying on the kids, the light would just blink and be gone.
rkagerer 6y ago
Better but not bulletproof; LED's can fail. Manufacturers might consider leaving a shallow recess around the camera to accommodate the paranoid among us.
lliamander 6y ago
The important thing isn't whether the indicator will be lit or not. The point is whether you will be able to prevent the camera from taking a video/picture you don't want it to. Unless you can physically disconnect or block the camera, there's not guarantee that a piece of software can't record. The best Apple can offer here is that you will know the recording was done (assuming you are looking at your computer, and not looking away or in another room) .
NileTheGreat 6y ago
A couple hypotheticals here: A way to overvoltage/current and burn out the LED. Probability low, but nonzero. More plausible situation: There are times when the camera is pointed at me, but my head is not pointed at the camera. Perhaps I left the laptop on in the corner of a room while it's playing music, or a myriad of other things. A cover is a simple, foolproof solution to the camera issue.

ohazi 6y ago

This is the only correct design, yet almost nobody does this. One of the challenges is verifying that this was done correctly. You may be able to verify a design like this once with a teardown, but it's impractical to verify your particular device, and next to impossible to re-verify this every time you leave your laptop unattended.

foota 6y ago
My threat model doesn't involve someone disassembling my laptop and rewiring it, at that point they might as well just plant a bug.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  This isn’t speculation. Opening up hardware to modify the internals is something that covert agencies do, and it’s naive to think that the purpose is equivalent to a simple bug. As someone who posts to Hacker News you are by almost any definition a potential information source or APT vector.
  - PascLeRasc 6y ago
    Apple's already addressed this by making their laptops nearly impossible to open up.
    - sjwright 6y ago
      Yes, nearly impossible... unless you spend $5 at Amazon on a screwdriver in which case it’s trivial.
    - inopinatus 6y ago
      I had an Apple on-site support engineer open up a 16” MBP on my kitchen table a couple of weeks ago to replace a cracked screen, and he brought only a small tool roll, a headlamp, and a anti-static work surface and wrist-strap. Took him only a few minutes to strip it down, longer to rebuild and recommission for use. I must add, I peeked over his shoulder a few times, and my comment that it looks as good inside as it does out was answered with “yes, it’s like being asked to restore a work of art”.
      - PascLeRasc 6y ago
        I was just trying to make a joke. I've actually been very happy with working on my MBP, it was easier to re-paste than a Dell XPS from the same year. The interior of Macbooks I've seen have been laid out remarkably well.
  - anang 6y ago
    I think what they mean is their threat model is more drive by random attacks rather than concerted efforts by intelligence agencies. For the former a piece of tape is enough.
  - bsder 6y ago
    > This isn’t speculation. He didn't say it was. What he said was that his threat model doesn't include state agencies. Many people use their laptops in bed and they probably don't want random people using their laptop webcam to take random nudes. And, while I hear the NSA being quoted a lot, let's be fair, how many of us have the opsec to stand up to a genuine NSA attack? A reasonable goal in thwarting the NSA should be to stop some random bureaucrat from typing on a few keys and getting access to your stuff without a signature. As long as some bureaucrat has to put their signature on a piece of paper and get budget to get my stuff, I'm safe against random trawling. Besides, if the NSA really wants you, they'll just fabricate the evidence. It's way cheaper.
    - inopinatus 6y ago
      > > This isn’t speculation. > He didn't say it was. They didn’t need to use the word to imply it. I did however assume they’re weren’t so self-centeredly solipsistic as to think that their personal choices were the universal general case, or advisable for a typical participant on this forum. But then: > Besides, if the NSA really wants you, they'll just fabricate the evidence. It's way cheaper. Again, no. That’s another of those “surely this doesn’t happen” comments, and once again, it is flat wrong. Even setting aside that discrediting/compromising someone is likely to be different agency; just as with bugging them, there are still plenty more reasons besides eavesdropping or coercion, such as industrial espionage, or sabotage, and the main point is that this isn’t theoretical. It happens. Deal with it, don’t deal, up to you, but never assume you can’t be a target. This is why I only take a disposable laptop and phone across US or Chinese borders. Both have intelligence services with the resources, ability, and inclination toward systematically documenting anyone even remotely interesting. > As long as some bureaucrat has to put their signature on a piece of paper and get budget to get my stuff, I'm safe against random trawling If this level of willingness to disregard the entire history of bureaucracy and covert action helps you feel safe, and if you have no direct or indirect ties to any other human being, body of data, or corporate entity that could ever be at any kind of risk, then why not I guess.
_kst_ 6y ago
My work laptop (a Thinkpad) has a built-in plastic slider that physically covers the camera. If something activates the camera while that cover is closed, it won't see anything.
- int_19h 6y ago
  Not only that, but this feature is also present in X1, which is plenty thin.
  - mcv 6y ago
    I came here to post exactly this about my X1E. First laptop I've seen that has a builtin slider (though I'm sure there are others).
- ohazi 6y ago
  I wanted this, but I wanted the WQHD display more. Lenovo didn't allow you to configure a T480 with both the high-resolution display and the plastic slider, it was either-or. The high-resolution display was their premium option that omitted the slider and added two more IR cameras for Windows Hello support. So in addition to not getting the slider, I also had to disable the IR cameras. I'm half tempted to buy the version of the display bezel with the slider and see if it'll fit as a replacement.
SilasX 6y ago
Bingo. It's a lot simpler to just allow the user to physically block the lens, which vetoes everything[1], rather than trust or verify that all that stuff is implemented correctly and reliably. [1] Yes, yes, assuming you can block all frequencies the camera is capable of detecting.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

maerF0x0 6y ago

even then there probably should be some minimum "flash" time in that if it turns on and off faster than the LED lights up or human eyes can see then it may still take images faster than we can register? EDIT: a commenter below said "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."

cgriswald 6y ago
Frankly, by the time the indicator is noticed, it may be too late. Even with the LED wired in place and a 'feature' (capacitor or software?) forcing it to stay lit for 3 seconds, the damage may be done. It does, at least, let you know an attack occurred. I really think an LED is barking up the wrong tree. A built-in hardware cover would have the same effect as the LED, and no one would have to trust it, since the camera would just be recording the back of the cover if it was hacked in stealth mode.
- JadeNB 6y ago
  How would you handle the microphone? I don't know any hardware way to make sure my microphone's not hearing me if I can't trust the software.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    A physical electrical on/off switch for the microphone (that actually interrupts the wires going to the mic).
    - JadeNB 6y ago
      Doesn't that require the same kind of trust in the correctness of the wiring that is at issue in some other comments? I can see that a camera cover works, but I think I couldn't see that a physical switch was actually interrupting the wiring without doing a teardown.
      - 6y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago

Sure, but can you guarantee any particular webcam wasn't intercepted and modified before being delivered? Can you guarantee the manufacturer followed the design specification for every batch? Threat models matter.

colordrops 6y ago

Even if they did claim that why should we trust that they did it correctly and without unintentional or intentional vulnerability?

aahhahahaaa 6y ago

This has been the case for quite some time (10 years or so). I've torn apart two Macbooks to specifically test this and the LED is enabled when the camera receives power. It's impossible to disable with software. You can modify the Macbook of course, which is why the paranoid type will still use tape. Some attacks I've seen will take a photo with the camera as fast as possible so you might not notice, but the light will always turn on.

rovr138 6y ago
I think newer ones even route it through the T1 chip. Need to look again. There was an exploit, over 10 years ago like you said, that allow to disable it. But that was corrected. Edit - iıSeeYou: Disabling the MacBook Webcam Indicator LED - This was 2008 - https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/36569/camera.pdf https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2... Looking for t1 links. Edit 2 Can't find anything confirming the t1 right now..
- Godel_unicode 6y ago
  The T chip in modern MacBooks is the T2, and it's certainly used for the mic cutoff. I'm unaware of public disclosures around it's use for the camera. https://support.apple.com/guide/security/hardware-microphone-disconnect-mac-ipad-secbbd20b00b/1/web/1 https://support.apple.com/guide/security/hardware-microphone...
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    On MacBooks the disconnect is done without the T2 being involved.
fearingreprisal 6y ago
> It's impossible to disable with software. > iSeeYou ( 2008 ) Which is it?
- varjag 6y ago

m463 6y ago

In the case of the school district spying on the kids, the light would just blink and be gone.

rkagerer 6y ago

Better but not bulletproof; LED's can fail. Manufacturers might consider leaving a shallow recess around the camera to accommodate the paranoid among us.

lliamander 6y ago

The important thing isn't whether the indicator will be lit or not. The point is whether you will be able to prevent the camera from taking a video/picture you don't want it to. Unless you can physically disconnect or block the camera, there's not guarantee that a piece of software can't record. The best Apple can offer here is that you will know the recording was done (assuming you are looking at your computer, and not looking away or in another room) .

NileTheGreat 6y ago

A couple hypotheticals here: A way to overvoltage/current and burn out the LED. Probability low, but nonzero. More plausible situation: There are times when the camera is pointed at me, but my head is not pointed at the camera. Perhaps I left the laptop on in the corner of a room while it's playing music, or a myriad of other things. A cover is a simple, foolproof solution to the camera issue.