8 ms·

That's putting a lot of trust in Apple. What else can they do when the is off.

zamadatix 3y ago
Whatever they've wanted to since they started shipping the product, the same as every other manufacturer. If "Apple is secretly after me and others" or "I can't trust that Apple is sufficiently secured against a 3rd party turning their devices against me" is your threat vector then owning an Apple (or other's) device has always been problematic for you and does not change with plans of them updating the firmware in store.
- Sporktacular 3y ago
  Being able to remotely turn it on and push updates is a new problem, and requires strong measures to lock it down.
  - op00to 3y ago
    If by remotely, you mean physically touching the device, then one could say that it's remotely turning the device on.
    - Sporktacular 3y ago
      I mean by remotely, what the article means by remotely: "Consisting of a "pad-like device," store employees place unopened iPhone boxes onto it to trigger an update. The pad wirelessly turns on the iPhone, runs the software update, then turns it off again." As in without contact with the device.
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    Why is it fair to assume this is only a concern when Apple publicly announces it if the whole concern is they won't publicly announce misuse? The phones already do things when off now e.g. Find My.
  - bdavbdav 3y ago
    But they can already push updates OTA, and presumably this is subject to the same signing
vore 3y ago
Surely you have to put a lot of trust in Apple as soon as you buy their product?
- contravariant 3y ago
  I mean you do need to trust them a bit more when they have the capability to remotely install software.
  - marvin 3y ago
    Well, maybe they had that capability all along, hmm. I guess you trusted that they didn't?
    - contravariant 3y ago
      Well no, I use a phone that I could install an OS on myself.
      - christophilus 3y ago
        If your phone vendor can install firmware blobs, you have basically the same problem. But I agree that it’s a problem I wish we didn’t have.
  - alpaca128 3y ago
    You mean like on almost every laptop or phone sold today with their OTA update support? Whether Apple installs the updates before or after you first start the device doesn't change the risk. Maybe you don't install any updates over the entire device lifetime? Okay but what if the firmware runs a keylogger? You always need to put a ton of trust into the company.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - 3y ago
Someone1234 3y ago
Literally everything already, they're authoring and flashing the firmware.
- FloatArtifact 3y ago
  I disagree. The same could be said for client side scanning child pornography. This is about the potential capacity for abuse where there was not capability previously.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Apple owns the firmware. They could enable 24/7 recording, lie to the OS about what is happening and trickle the data back server-side within harmless iCloud requests. It would be pretty much undetectable. And the point of CSAM client-side is that it is more secure and private than them doing it server-side.
    - eimrine 3y ago
      > CSAM client-side is that it is more secure and private than them doing it server-side. What can be more insecure and not at all private than scanning user files using user's computer resources? Server-side scanning is impossible if E2EE.
    - FloatArtifact 3y ago
      The difference is there is no not choosing to use client-side scanning. I could choose not to use apple cloud services for photos and therefore not participate in server side scanning. Essentially, client-side scanning assumes everybody's guilty until proven innocent. It's a slippery slope for scanning local content. Today the admirable goal of eliminating child pornography and maybe tomorrow FBI most wanted list, then pretty much anybody in the criminal system. Not to mention the political implications. You see this as a simple trusting apple because they have complete control over the OS/Hardware. I see this as a culture shift that goes beyond trusting any particular company that fundamentally erodes privacy.
taspeotis 3y ago
Just imagine what they can do when the power is on!
MarkSweep 3y ago
I think your worry is this: this capability means Apple can turn on and install arbitrary software whenever they want. Wood you be ok if this capability could only be activated at super-closer range (wireless charging range) and only worked on iPhones that have not been activated? We don’t know if that is how this works, but I would be comfortable with this feature if that’s how it works.
- raverbashing 3y ago
  Yes And that's obviously how it works. Maybe it will then enable wifi instead of sending data through wireless charging but that's it. And then it would turn itself off. Still what you can do is what Apple could do before putting it into the box. Again, obviously I fail to see how this is concerning (to put it politely)
  - QuercusMax 3y ago
    This seems really easy to implement , IMO. Here's a world where this basically already works: * When an iPhone comes from the factory, it's not really off-off, it's just in standby mode. Probably true to some extent in any case? * If battery is above 50%, try to connect to a special Apple Store wifi network with a known signature. (Wifi has to have this kind of feature, right?) * If you're connected, check for updates and apply any that apply. * Go back to sleep. Easy peasy. Bonus points if you can wirelessly charge them through the box, but honestly apple stores probably go through enough product it doesn't even matter.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      AFAIK it's off-off. Any kind of standby mode that was monitoring WiFi would drain the battery after some number of weeks, and Apple doesn't want consumers to open their box to a phone that won't turn on until it's charged. And phones can definitely sit around for many months, at the warehouse and the store.
  - diffeomorphism 3y ago
    That is how you would like it to work, but we have learned time and time again that "obvious" does not mean all these safeguards are actually implemented or bug free. So what you get is a mechanism that wirelessly, without any confirmation, modifies the software on your device and "only" requires proximity. That seems like a great angle of attack for malware, surveillance, cracking a stolen phone,... . You are free to believe that apple implemented this perfectly bug free, but I would not be surprised if we get a CVE related to this in a few years.
sharts 3y ago
I mean unless you author the software for your own devices we all out trust in all of the companies we purchase from.
e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
Apple also writes iOS, so you already have to trust them to buy and use their phones. I don't really see the difference here.
- Sporktacular 3y ago
  It's not Apple you have to worry about. It's supply chain attackers whose lives just got easier.
  - Sporktacular 3y ago
    Seems no one's worried by the possibility of fast, low-cost, mass device compromise then.
RockRobotRock 3y ago
Buying a computer and using it for daily activities is inherently trusting whoever made that computer.
_fat_santa 3y ago
My argument is a bit different than others for why Apple would never do this. The iPhone is one of the most popular devices on the planet, and Apple is in a very high profile position because of it. The last time they tried doing anything remotely close to sneaky was the slowing down of phones with older batteries which eventually resulted in a class action lawsuit. Sure Apple could install backdoor software, crapware or whatever else in an update, but their exposure to a class action lawsuit would be insane. Whatever they did would be found out pretty quick by security researchers and....you have class action on your hands that will probably cost the org $100M - $500M. Apple isn't in the business of being nefarious, their in the business of selling you an iPhone. It's in their best interest to sell you the most secure and best phone possible, because all they want is to sell you an iPhone.
- webmobdev 3y ago
  Ah, but you forget the license agreement or definitely the privacy policy that changes with every OS upgrade. By doing forced OS upgrades, Apple is essentially forcing new ToS and privacy policy updates on you too.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    They’re doing this BEFORE you buy the device. They’re not forcing anything on you.
    - webmobdev 3y ago
      They announce the OS version with every new hardware release. So it is indeed a criteria that consumers use to decide to purchase. And not everybody automatically upgrades to a new OS version.
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  > It's in their best interest to sell you the most secure and best phone possible, because all they want is to sell you an iPhone. No. Apple's best interest is to make money. Apple is a business; they care neither about you or me. The iPhone is side-product, a cash-cow that can be milked over and over.

Whatever they've wanted to since they started shipping the product, the same as every other manufacturer. If "Apple is secretly after me and others" or "I can't trust that Apple is sufficiently secured against a 3rd party turning their devices against me" is your threat vector then owning an Apple (or other's) device has always been problematic for you and does not change with plans of them updating the firmware in store.

Sporktacular 3y ago
Being able to remotely turn it on and push updates is a new problem, and requires strong measures to lock it down.
- op00to 3y ago
  If by remotely, you mean physically touching the device, then one could say that it's remotely turning the device on.
  - Sporktacular 3y ago
    I mean by remotely, what the article means by remotely: "Consisting of a "pad-like device," store employees place unopened iPhone boxes onto it to trigger an update. The pad wirelessly turns on the iPhone, runs the software update, then turns it off again." As in without contact with the device.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  Why is it fair to assume this is only a concern when Apple publicly announces it if the whole concern is they won't publicly announce misuse? The phones already do things when off now e.g. Find My.
- bdavbdav 3y ago
  But they can already push updates OTA, and presumably this is subject to the same signing

vore 3y ago

Surely you have to put a lot of trust in Apple as soon as you buy their product?

contravariant 3y ago
I mean you do need to trust them a bit more when they have the capability to remotely install software.
- marvin 3y ago
  Well, maybe they had that capability all along, hmm. I guess you trusted that they didn't?
  - contravariant 3y ago
    Well no, I use a phone that I could install an OS on myself.
    - christophilus 3y ago
      If your phone vendor can install firmware blobs, you have basically the same problem. But I agree that it’s a problem I wish we didn’t have.
- alpaca128 3y ago
  You mean like on almost every laptop or phone sold today with their OTA update support? Whether Apple installs the updates before or after you first start the device doesn't change the risk. Maybe you don't install any updates over the entire device lifetime? Okay but what if the firmware runs a keylogger? You always need to put a ton of trust into the company.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - 3y ago

Someone1234 3y ago

Literally everything already, they're authoring and flashing the firmware.

FloatArtifact 3y ago
I disagree. The same could be said for client side scanning child pornography. This is about the potential capacity for abuse where there was not capability previously.
- threeseed 3y ago
  Apple owns the firmware. They could enable 24/7 recording, lie to the OS about what is happening and trickle the data back server-side within harmless iCloud requests. It would be pretty much undetectable. And the point of CSAM client-side is that it is more secure and private than them doing it server-side.
  - eimrine 3y ago
    > CSAM client-side is that it is more secure and private than them doing it server-side. What can be more insecure and not at all private than scanning user files using user's computer resources? Server-side scanning is impossible if E2EE.
  - FloatArtifact 3y ago
    The difference is there is no not choosing to use client-side scanning. I could choose not to use apple cloud services for photos and therefore not participate in server side scanning. Essentially, client-side scanning assumes everybody's guilty until proven innocent. It's a slippery slope for scanning local content. Today the admirable goal of eliminating child pornography and maybe tomorrow FBI most wanted list, then pretty much anybody in the criminal system. Not to mention the political implications. You see this as a simple trusting apple because they have complete control over the OS/Hardware. I see this as a culture shift that goes beyond trusting any particular company that fundamentally erodes privacy.

taspeotis 3y ago

Just imagine what they can do when the power is on!

MarkSweep 3y ago

I think your worry is this: this capability means Apple can turn on and install arbitrary software whenever they want. Wood you be ok if this capability could only be activated at super-closer range (wireless charging range) and only worked on iPhones that have not been activated? We don’t know if that is how this works, but I would be comfortable with this feature if that’s how it works.

raverbashing 3y ago
Yes And that's obviously how it works. Maybe it will then enable wifi instead of sending data through wireless charging but that's it. And then it would turn itself off. Still what you can do is what Apple could do before putting it into the box. Again, obviously I fail to see how this is concerning (to put it politely)
- QuercusMax 3y ago
  This seems really easy to implement , IMO. Here's a world where this basically already works: * When an iPhone comes from the factory, it's not really off-off, it's just in standby mode. Probably true to some extent in any case? * If battery is above 50%, try to connect to a special Apple Store wifi network with a known signature. (Wifi has to have this kind of feature, right?) * If you're connected, check for updates and apply any that apply. * Go back to sleep. Easy peasy. Bonus points if you can wirelessly charge them through the box, but honestly apple stores probably go through enough product it doesn't even matter.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    AFAIK it's off-off. Any kind of standby mode that was monitoring WiFi would drain the battery after some number of weeks, and Apple doesn't want consumers to open their box to a phone that won't turn on until it's charged. And phones can definitely sit around for many months, at the warehouse and the store.
- diffeomorphism 3y ago
  That is how you would like it to work, but we have learned time and time again that "obvious" does not mean all these safeguards are actually implemented or bug free. So what you get is a mechanism that wirelessly, without any confirmation, modifies the software on your device and "only" requires proximity. That seems like a great angle of attack for malware, surveillance, cracking a stolen phone,... . You are free to believe that apple implemented this perfectly bug free, but I would not be surprised if we get a CVE related to this in a few years.

sharts 3y ago

I mean unless you author the software for your own devices we all out trust in all of the companies we purchase from.

e63f67dd-065b 3y ago

Apple also writes iOS, so you already have to trust them to buy and use their phones. I don't really see the difference here.

Sporktacular 3y ago
It's not Apple you have to worry about. It's supply chain attackers whose lives just got easier.
- Sporktacular 3y ago
  Seems no one's worried by the possibility of fast, low-cost, mass device compromise then.

RockRobotRock 3y ago

Buying a computer and using it for daily activities is inherently trusting whoever made that computer.

_fat_santa 3y ago

My argument is a bit different than others for why Apple would never do this. The iPhone is one of the most popular devices on the planet, and Apple is in a very high profile position because of it. The last time they tried doing anything remotely close to sneaky was the slowing down of phones with older batteries which eventually resulted in a class action lawsuit. Sure Apple could install backdoor software, crapware or whatever else in an update, but their exposure to a class action lawsuit would be insane. Whatever they did would be found out pretty quick by security researchers and....you have class action on your hands that will probably cost the org $100M - $500M. Apple isn't in the business of being nefarious, their in the business of selling you an iPhone. It's in their best interest to sell you the most secure and best phone possible, because all they want is to sell you an iPhone.

webmobdev 3y ago
Ah, but you forget the license agreement or definitely the privacy policy that changes with every OS upgrade. By doing forced OS upgrades, Apple is essentially forcing new ToS and privacy policy updates on you too.
- MBCook 3y ago
  They’re doing this BEFORE you buy the device. They’re not forcing anything on you.
  - webmobdev 3y ago
    They announce the OS version with every new hardware release. So it is indeed a criteria that consumers use to decide to purchase. And not everybody automatically upgrades to a new OS version.
doublerabbit 3y ago
> It's in their best interest to sell you the most secure and best phone possible, because all they want is to sell you an iPhone. No. Apple's best interest is to make money. Apple is a business; they care neither about you or me. The iPhone is side-product, a cash-cow that can be milked over and over.