6 ms·

I don't mean to be the devil's advocate, but I'm pretty sure that disabling Face ID when replacing the camera with a generic one is primarily a measure to thwar

• jeroenhd 3y ago
  When the camera fails you don't exactly have many options because you can't really order the official parts. Why would the camera be of consequence, though? Isn't authentication data stored in the proprietary TPM thing Apple includes in their devices?
  • chaosite 3y ago
    Because the camera represents the analog hole. If you can replace the camera, you can hook the phone up to a computer and feed it pictures of faces instead, until the phone unlocks.
    • SiempreViernes 3y ago
      If you find that attack vector so scary, I'm sorry to inform you that it is already possible to prop up an iphone against a pizza box and have it stare at a screen showing a feed of pictures. Admittedly you might have to put the iphone on its side so you can get the charging cable in there, which means you might have to figure out how to rotate the pictures too.
      • LeafItAlone 3y ago
        Do you have a source for that? Don’t iPhones use a 3D mapping via infrared? 2D pictures don’t unlock my iPhone.
      • cainxinth 3y ago
        FaceID uses 3D data as well. You can’t unlock it with just a 2D image of a face.
        • SiempreViernes 3y ago
          That's a good objection, go tell it to the guy I'm sarcastically replying to instead because it is they that are worried, not me.
      • formerly_proven 3y ago
        How would that https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Apple_Face_ID_infrared_dot_projector.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Apple_Fa... work with a photo?
  • lonelyasacloud 3y ago
    > Why would the camera be of consequence, though? Insisting on approved camera avoids making it easier for bad actors to stealthily capture's a victim's biometrics and then use a third party "camera" to replay that information and unlock the victim's phone without them being present.
    • SuperShibe 3y ago
      Couldn't an attacker just swap the sensor? This seems like something that higher law enforcement likely already did. Also couldn't you avoid this problem entirely be just making the dot projector use an unique pattern for each unlock attempt?
      • formerly_proven 3y ago
        "Couldn't just", might be, probably not. Face-ID is a pretty complex and very highly integrated system. The dot pattern can't be changed, because each dot in the pattern (~100 dots or so) is actually a VCSEL laser. The large constellation (>30k dots) is created by a diffractive beamsplitter. The sensor is probably custom, so I'd wager the CMOS IR sensor is actually physically the thing that's paired to the Secure Enclave. I doubt there's just an unencrypted MIPI link running from some random 1/6" OmniVision sensor to the CPU.
    • circuit10 3y ago
      You could just install another camera alongside the existing one and still do that, so that’s not the reason
    • macNchz 3y ago
      Arguably if you anticipate someone targeting you who is capable of attacks this sophisticated, you are very far outside the norm and should probably have an entirely different relationship with your devices than most people.
    • SiempreViernes 3y ago
      Pretty sure the state of the art is just sending a text with a zero click exploit, not mucking about with hardware.
• okennedy 3y ago
  There are simple ways to allow hardware changes without losing security. One straightforward idea: Once the phone is unlocked (e.g. by pin code) allow the user to authorize the new hardware. This is effectively what Apple does already. The usual difficulties with asking users to make security choices don't really apply here: Physical changes to the hardware are requires, so security fatigue isn't as big a deal. Maybe you get some protection from wrench attacks by not having the authority to pair new internal hardware, but that seems like a very specialized use case...
  • lotsofpulp 3y ago
    I can see used devices being more trustworthy if the hardware is not able to be modified by the previous owner.
    • eastbound 3y ago
      Just make it possible to display the list of hw changes.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • lotsofpulp 3y ago
        More complexity, more chance of problems. For example, my dad used to use Androids. Without fail, he would get malware on them, he simply could not resist bypassing the security prompt to click on something he wanted to click on. Or maybe he does not understand English, or the concept of malware enough to properly heed the security warning pop up. With iPhone, it’s not possible, so there is no worry, and no malware. Same with the hardware changes. People like my dad, or my wife, or even me who have very little interest in technology simply want to trust their device. And this device is literally the key to their life, their financials, their personal data. All I know is my life has been made much easier by slinging Apple devices at people in my family that they simply do not have a way to mess up.
• crote 3y ago
  > replacing the camera with a generic one If I am not mistaken, they also disable Face ID when you replace the camera with a genuine Apple camera from a donor phone.
• viraptor 3y ago
  I'm not sure I buy it. The sensor itself in the camera doesn't do mutual authentication with other components. If you have enough interest / access to mess with the hardware permanently, you'll be able to feed whatever image you want to the original camera chip.
• exabrial 3y ago
  Who cares though? The .00005% of the population that actually faces that threat vector can deal with it. Nobody is sneaking into my house and replacing the faceid middle of the night. This is happening to nobody you know, and nobody they know either. The rest of us just want our $800 paper weight to work again.
  • kaba0 3y ago
    Your 800 dollar paper weight can be sold for almost that exactly because Apple guarantees that the hardware can’t be tempered with.
    • exabrial 3y ago
      what? That makes no sense.
• meragrin_ 3y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that disabling Face ID when replacing the camera with a generic one is primarily a measure to thwart potential hardware-based attacks. I'm pretty sure it's not. The number of people which would be targeted by this is too small to justify the additional costs. The vast majority of people which would be targeted by this are pretty much screwed anyhow since the adversary already has physical access. It's much more likely a brand protection scheme to ensure there are fewer items out there with sub-par hardware.
• perryizgr8 3y ago
  The number of people who could be targets of an attack of such sophistication is so vanishingly small, that it seems irrelevant compared to the number of people who need repair work on their phones.
• sschueller 3y ago
  Let me make that decision. If apple thinks it's an issue make it clear before letting me activate it that they no longer guarantee any safety (which they don't anyway, that's the joke, you already signed that way in the user agreement). My ISP will provide me with a router and full support. If I change the settings or flash firmware they will no longer support it. However, if I let them restore the factory firmware and config they will again support it. It's not hard and apple's motive here is clearly maximize stock value, nothing else.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]