5 ms·

> …Controlled by Apple and Google. FFS ! Pure FUD and you know it. I don't know about Google, but with Apple, the data necessary to validate the fingerprint

> …Controlled by Apple and Google. FFS ! Pure FUD and you know it. I don't know about Google, but with Apple, the data necessary to validate the fingerprint is stored on the device's secure enclave[1]. Its not readable by apps on the device, let alone Apple ! (I imagine Google devices are the same, I just said "don't know" because I don't have the first-hand knowldege). [1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204587 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204587

Nullabillity 3y ago
[flagged]
- umanghere 3y ago
  I don’t mean to sound argumentative, but that’s a knee jerk response. It’s possible to reverse engineer the OS code to verify that the biometrics indeed end up on the SEP’s encrypted storage, and several people have done this in the past. Here’s an excellent presentation on the SEP, found by just a simple Google search. [0] [0]: https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Mandt-Demystifying-The-Secure-Enclave-Processor.pdf https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Mandt-De...
  - croes 3y ago
    But couldn't Apple release an update at any time that would allow access to the data?
    - HPsquared 3y ago
      In that case, biometric data is probably the least of your worries.
    - infotogivenm 3y ago
      Yes. And if your threat model really includes distrusting the manufacturer of your phone and its software after a specific point in time at which you have reversed all of its internals, you should have disabled software auto updates. But that is not how most people use a phone.
    - stevehawk 3y ago
      an apple nerd will come along with a real answer but i believe the answer is no. that even if they patched software.. the chip involved is not going to (or physixally can't) cooperate
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        Even if the chip didn't cooperate, Apple has the key derivation function and presumably everything used to generate your key. While we're on the topic of unlikely first-party attacks, it would be interesting to hear (or see) how Apple limits their ability to create duplicate keys.
        Kirby64 3y ago
        Unlikely. Having the key generation function is worthless, as you also would need the truly randomized nonce and salt used in any modern cryptographic function. There are plenty of methods to have truly unknowable functions even knowing exactly how the function is generated. That's the whole point of trustless security.
        numpad0 3y ago
        Anyone's free to brute force encrypted data?
        croes 3y ago
        Do you need to brute force the data, can't you simply intercept the data from the finger print sensor?
        numpad0 3y ago
        Do they go through internal bus unencrypted?
        traceroute66 3y ago
        > Do they go through internal bus unencrypted? Of course not. "The sensor captures the biometric image and securely transmits it to the Secure Enclave"[1] IIRC the implementation detail is AES-GCM-256 with ECDH P-256, i.e. the biometric sensor and the secure enclave derive a unique session key via ECDH each and every time. [1]https://support.apple.com/guide/security/face-id-and-touch-id-security-sec067eb0c9e/web https://support.apple.com/guide/security/face-id-and-touch-i...
- pohl 3y ago
  Shouldn't it be more like "according to the ARM TrustZone specification"?
  - theshrike79 3y ago
    It's not cool to hate ARM or industry standards, but it's cool to hate on Apple
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Why would they need to lie about that? They control the entire OS and all of the applications, including the app that their users use to access Twitter.
- Arrath 3y ago
  There's healthy skepticism and then there's tin-foil hattery. Have there been any third party teardowns, reverse engineering efforts, or other investigations to determine that apple's claim is a bald faced lie?
andsoitis 3y ago
>> …Controlled by Apple and Google. > FFS ! Pure FUD and you know it. I did not say, or mean, “access to the data”, which is why I used the word “control”. Apple designed a system that runs on their devices and are the ones steering its evolution.

Nullabillity 3y ago

[flagged]

umanghere 3y ago
I don’t mean to sound argumentative, but that’s a knee jerk response. It’s possible to reverse engineer the OS code to verify that the biometrics indeed end up on the SEP’s encrypted storage, and several people have done this in the past. Here’s an excellent presentation on the SEP, found by just a simple Google search. [0] [0]: https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Mandt-Demystifying-The-Secure-Enclave-Processor.pdf https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Mandt-De...
- croes 3y ago
  But couldn't Apple release an update at any time that would allow access to the data?
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    In that case, biometric data is probably the least of your worries.
  - infotogivenm 3y ago
    Yes. And if your threat model really includes distrusting the manufacturer of your phone and its software after a specific point in time at which you have reversed all of its internals, you should have disabled software auto updates. But that is not how most people use a phone.
  - stevehawk 3y ago
    an apple nerd will come along with a real answer but i believe the answer is no. that even if they patched software.. the chip involved is not going to (or physixally can't) cooperate
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Even if the chip didn't cooperate, Apple has the key derivation function and presumably everything used to generate your key. While we're on the topic of unlikely first-party attacks, it would be interesting to hear (or see) how Apple limits their ability to create duplicate keys.
      - Kirby64 3y ago
        Unlikely. Having the key generation function is worthless, as you also would need the truly randomized nonce and salt used in any modern cryptographic function. There are plenty of methods to have truly unknowable functions even knowing exactly how the function is generated. That's the whole point of trustless security.
      - numpad0 3y ago
        Anyone's free to brute force encrypted data?
        croes 3y ago
        Do you need to brute force the data, can't you simply intercept the data from the finger print sensor?
        numpad0 3y ago
        Do they go through internal bus unencrypted?
        traceroute66 3y ago
        > Do they go through internal bus unencrypted? Of course not. "The sensor captures the biometric image and securely transmits it to the Secure Enclave"[1] IIRC the implementation detail is AES-GCM-256 with ECDH P-256, i.e. the biometric sensor and the secure enclave derive a unique session key via ECDH each and every time. [1]https://support.apple.com/guide/security/face-id-and-touch-id-security-sec067eb0c9e/web https://support.apple.com/guide/security/face-id-and-touch-i...
pohl 3y ago
Shouldn't it be more like "according to the ARM TrustZone specification"?
- theshrike79 3y ago
  It's not cool to hate ARM or industry standards, but it's cool to hate on Apple
bee_rider 3y ago
Why would they need to lie about that? They control the entire OS and all of the applications, including the app that their users use to access Twitter.
Arrath 3y ago
There's healthy skepticism and then there's tin-foil hattery. Have there been any third party teardowns, reverse engineering efforts, or other investigations to determine that apple's claim is a bald faced lie?

andsoitis 3y ago

>> …Controlled by Apple and Google. > FFS ! Pure FUD and you know it. I did not say, or mean, “access to the data”, which is why I used the word “control”. Apple designed a system that runs on their devices and are the ones steering its evolution.