4 ms·
> that I'd like to claim wasn't an issue when I was making them circa 2015-2017, Well, I wouldn't say that the standards for (software) security were anywhere
by Avamander 2y ago
> that I'd like to claim wasn't an issue when I was making them circa 2015-2017,
Well, I wouldn't say that the standards for (software) security were anywhere near as high as they are now. It makes sense that our requirements for things change.
> It's very, very, very, hard to believe there's 0 way for Apple to ensure an encrypted connection.
Sure there are ways, but without regulation I struggle to see why should/would Apple ever bother. Nor do I think that a forced way would be held to the same standards as the rest.
> Put another way, avoiding the global observations: If it's impossible, why allow watches to be paired at all?
Because they can't do much, if anything at all?
- Phrodo_00 2y ago> Because they can't do much, if anything at all? But the Apple Watch can, and a lot of the same arguments apply to it as much as any third party watch.
- Avamander 2y agoYes, but they can actually know it fulfils some security criteria of theirs. Doesn't have fundamentally broken cryptography hidden somewhere, doesn't leak its keys, all that bare minimum is really difficult to guarantee with external unknown implementations.