4 ms·
Maybe but why can't the end user simply be tasked with accepting the new screen signature? That's how GPG, Secure boot, etc. all work. You just have a persisten
by KingMachiavelli 5y ago
Maybe but why can't the end user simply be tasked with accepting the new screen signature? That's how GPG, Secure boot, etc. all work. You just have a persistent list of trusted signatures.
- robbedpeter 5y agoBecause not allowing customers the opportunity for competence or independence increases the amount of money Apple can extract. The walls in the garden only ever get higher.
- user-the-name 5y agoBecause now you can defeat the security on a stolen phone by replacing the screen and clicking "yes".
- alpaca128 5y agoEvery biometric system on phones also forces the user to set a password/pin as fallback. So no, you cannot just gain entry into a stolen phone like that. Any phone that lets you just circumvent security by removing a part wasn't secure in the first place.
- threeseed 5y agoMajority of users are not in the position to understand what a signature is and whether they should accept it or not. So everyone will just click "Approve" in order to get their phone back. In which case what is the point of even having trusted signatures at all ?
- malka 5y ago"We detect that your phone screen has just been changed. Is this expected ?" with a "yes", "no" buttons for answers. Pretty sure this is understandable.
- ryanlol 5y agoSo what happens if you click “no”?
- uuidgen 5y ago"It is possible someone tampered with your phone to gain unauthorized entry","Please contact apple-authorized support".
- rattlesnakedave 5y agoHow do you deal with a rouge parts supplier, phone store, phone store employee, etc?
- vlovich123 5y agoI know this joke! Stop telling them embarrassing stories? I’m sure you meant rogue though. Yes, in theory it might be a problem. In practice any supply chain that resulted in a significant issue like this would be easily prosecuted so let wetware systems handle the things they’re better suited to.
- Nextgrid 5y agoIf your role is to protect data you could always require an OS reinstall before the new part becomes functional, removing any incentive from replacing parts to gain access to a user's existing data. But the entire assumption that parts are restricted for security reasons is flawed. "Security" is done in the main SoC, the peripherals such as Face ID/Touch ID sensors should just be dumb input devices providing the face/fingerprint data to the SoC which authenticates them. There is absolutely no reason why those should be part of the chain of trust.