3 ms·
> In the case of the screen, I think it’s much of a security issue. I default to skepticism on this sort of explanation, especially when it involves Apple and
by Zak 5y ago
> In the case of the screen, I think it’s much of a security issue.
I default to skepticism on this sort of explanation, especially when it involves Apple and third-party repair.
Of course, it might be possible to devise a very sophisticated attack using the screen's hardware interface and Face ID as a vector. If the iPhone was a security-hardened specialty device, I might find that to be a valid reason. It isn't; it's a consumer device, and one that's not terribly hard for sophisticated attackers to compromise, e.g. https://www.wired.com/story/apple-imessage-zero-click-hacks/ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-imessage-zero-click-hacks/
- gpt5 5y agoThe iPhone is one of the most desirable attack target in the world. An attack that can access locked phones is extremely valuable. From the police to spy agencies to totalitarian regimes, everyone would buy your stuff. See NSO.
- fsckboy 5y agoif you absolutely don't want your iPhone broken into, don't use FaceID at all; this case of "disables FaceID" in that case would be your best friend.