3 ms·
> You could prove the photo was real. No. You'd only ever be able to show that key material belonging to $specific_camera was used to sign/mark the image. Was
by baby_souffle 1mo ago
> You could prove the photo was real.
No. You'd only ever be able to show that key material belonging to $specific_camera was used to sign/mark the image.
Was the camera manufacturer breached? Did somebody on the factory floor steal some keys during the provisioning step? Or did somebody build their own photo-sensor simulator and plug _that_ in to the camera's motherboard to feed it a "real" image? Before going _that_ far, just point the unmodified camera at a sufficiently high resolution display...
- baby_souffle 1mo agoWell that was fast! > build their own photo-sensor simulator and plug _that_ in to the camera's motherboard to feed it a "real" image? Already been done! https://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1102-C2PA-and-Pixel-Glitter-Milk.html https://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1102-C2PA-... TL;DR: Strong cryptography over untrusted data does not make the data more trustworthy.