3 ms·
Your threat model is still ridiculously upside down. You are literally arguing that you are more worried about the possibility that someone subjects you to some
by AshamedCaptain 3y ago
Your threat model is still ridiculously upside down. You are literally arguing that you are more worried about the possibility that someone subjects you to some type of maid attack (which requires an almost implausible level of dedication) rather than someone with a 5$ atmel chip claiming to be an Apple TV, automatically pairing with your device, and afterwards doing god knows what with it (including leaking more data than _anything you could do_ with a even country-agent level trojanized replacement screen). All from the comfort of their car and with so little targeting they could practically wardrive with it.
- chatmasta 3y agoI'm assuming I can opt-into the threat, i.e. it's possible for me to disable Bluetooth to remove my exposure to this class of attacks. When I turn on my WiFi I know that I'm subjecting myself to de-auth attacks, for example. I can't opt out of a hardware attack once a malicious repair shop has replaced a critical module in my phone with their own. Like I said, I'm more concerned with the latter. It doesn't mean I'm not concerned about attacks from external devices too.
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago> can't opt out of a hardware attack once a malicious repair shop So apparently you forever disable Bluetooth out of concern but at the same time think it is unavoidable to leave your iPhone unattended at random repair shops? At least the maid stuff (even if astronaut-level engineering) is remotely plausible.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lxgr 3y agoSince when can de-auth attacks crash devices? That is what’s happening here!