4 ms·

Privacy aside, there's no way this can be done securely. According to https://worldcoin.org/be-a-worldcoin-operator https://worldcoin.org/be-a-worldcoin-operat

Privacy aside, there's no way this can be done securely. According to https://worldcoin.org/be-a-worldcoin-operator https://worldcoin.org/be-a-worldcoin-operator they'll gladly ship the iris scanning unit to untrusted 3rd party operators, in a similar vein to a bank shipping out PoS card terminals. I'd love to have a play with one, it wouldn't surprise me if you could get it to mint fresh accounts out of thin air (e.g. by mitming the bus between the iris scanner and the rest of the unit, and making it report fresh unique scans)

hdevalence 3y ago
> by mitming the bus between the iris scanner and the rest of the unit, and making it report fresh unique scans Hmm, I wonder if the worldcoin team also thought of that possibility? (Yes, they did, the iris processing is done inside a hardware enclave so that the obvious attack is not possible) https://whitepaper.worldcoin.org/technical-implementation https://whitepaper.worldcoin.org/technical-implementation I am broadly anti-Worldcoin but it is reasonably competently executed at a technical level. It would be good to understand what they actually did before declaring it to be impossible.
- epolanski 3y ago
  Can't I just bypass it with some contact lenses that distort the scan and make it unique?
- Retr0id 3y ago
  Hardware enclaves are never 100% impenetrable, it comes down to making the cost of attack greater than what an attacker expects to gain. Traditional card payment terminals use nominally secure hardware and yet struggle with that tradeoff to this day, and I'm not convinced WorldCoin will do any better. The SoC they're using, the Jetson Xavier NX, is a cousin of the very thoroughly pwned (secure enclaves and all) TX1. Further, they don't describe how the busses connecting the sensors to the SoC are encrypted and/or authenticated, which leads me to believe that they are not. Intel gave up on shipping SGX in consumer devices because (imho) shipping secure enclaves directly to "adversaries" (the consumer being an adversary under the SGX threat model) proved too difficult to maintain.
  - Retr0id 3y ago
    They talk about a future bug bounty program - I'm certainly intrigued, and if the up-front hardware costs aren't too high I might give it a go.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    > (the consumer being an adversary under the SGX threat model) proved too difficult to maintain. This is what's wrong with so much of this "security" tech. It's not for our security but for that of the businesses and their business models behind it.
- algorias 3y ago
  > I am broadly anti-Worldcoin but it is reasonably competently executed at a technical level. It would be good to understand what they actually did before declaring it to be impossible. +1 to this. I'm very skeptical of the project (even though I know some of the people working on it), but the problem space is extremely hard and they're giving it an actual shot. If you can think of a potential problem in 5 minutes, I guarantee you that they've thought of it too.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    I'm sure they are. But I'm not worried about them failing. I'm worried about them succeeding.
tim333 3y ago
I think they have to trust the orb operators a little bit.

hdevalence 3y ago

> by mitming the bus between the iris scanner and the rest of the unit, and making it report fresh unique scans Hmm, I wonder if the worldcoin team also thought of that possibility? (Yes, they did, the iris processing is done inside a hardware enclave so that the obvious attack is not possible) https://whitepaper.worldcoin.org/technical-implementation https://whitepaper.worldcoin.org/technical-implementation I am broadly anti-Worldcoin but it is reasonably competently executed at a technical level. It would be good to understand what they actually did before declaring it to be impossible.

epolanski 3y ago
Can't I just bypass it with some contact lenses that distort the scan and make it unique?
Retr0id 3y ago
Hardware enclaves are never 100% impenetrable, it comes down to making the cost of attack greater than what an attacker expects to gain. Traditional card payment terminals use nominally secure hardware and yet struggle with that tradeoff to this day, and I'm not convinced WorldCoin will do any better. The SoC they're using, the Jetson Xavier NX, is a cousin of the very thoroughly pwned (secure enclaves and all) TX1. Further, they don't describe how the busses connecting the sensors to the SoC are encrypted and/or authenticated, which leads me to believe that they are not. Intel gave up on shipping SGX in consumer devices because (imho) shipping secure enclaves directly to "adversaries" (the consumer being an adversary under the SGX threat model) proved too difficult to maintain.
- Retr0id 3y ago
  They talk about a future bug bounty program - I'm certainly intrigued, and if the up-front hardware costs aren't too high I might give it a go.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  > (the consumer being an adversary under the SGX threat model) proved too difficult to maintain. This is what's wrong with so much of this "security" tech. It's not for our security but for that of the businesses and their business models behind it.
algorias 3y ago
> I am broadly anti-Worldcoin but it is reasonably competently executed at a technical level. It would be good to understand what they actually did before declaring it to be impossible. +1 to this. I'm very skeptical of the project (even though I know some of the people working on it), but the problem space is extremely hard and they're giving it an actual shot. If you can think of a potential problem in 5 minutes, I guarantee you that they've thought of it too.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  I'm sure they are. But I'm not worried about them failing. I'm worried about them succeeding.

tim333 3y ago

I think they have to trust the orb operators a little bit.