3 ms·

What makes you so certain that this valuable research showing weaknesses in today's systems will render the C2PA concept useless forever? Yes, software LPEs ar

What makes you so certain that this valuable research showing weaknesses in today's systems will render the C2PA concept useless forever? Yes, software LPEs are a risk -- as they are in every nontrivial computer system. New ones will appear, and old ones will be closed in time, as TFA acknowledges. Re hardware attacks: The (neat!) glitch injection attack the author describes in the linked "lighter" page only raises the implementation cost of doing image certification properly. For example, if the camera module presented only an interface that dumped raw RGB or JPEG-encoded data plus a digital signature that used a private key known only to the manufacturer, then all that would be required to verify a "downstream" image would be to keep a copy of those original bytes inside the final (potentially cropped, filtered, AI-ed, etc.) image, in the worst case roughly doubling its size on disk (though certainly more efficient schemes could be designed). Any interested third party could then compare the original and final images by eye and decide for themselves whether or not the subsequent processing materially changed the image's "meaning". Finally: Does the existence of lock picks or bolt cutters render padlocks pointless today? Does it corrode society by encouraging people to mistakenly believe that anything they put behind a $5 padlock will be safe forever? No, and no.

hypfer 2mo ago
This is yet another of these absolutely caustic takes that come with a veneer of intellectualism, but actually just ignorantly deconstruct reality. Each of them weaponizing the rules of the platform that (for sensible reasons) demand you engage with the strongest interpretation of the message/argument you see. The asymmetry of effort there is unsustainable, and that's exactly the point. No idea how that could be solved. Maybe a meta comment like this one helps. __ I mean if you think about it, it shouldn't be possible for some anon account to drop this and sound like it's a worthy contribution to a debate against some real person with a real name, a track record and multiple thousand dollars of bricked hardware leading up to that assessment. (Nor would it make sense for a non-anon but equally empty account) It makes no sense, and the guarantees regarding protection of speech and all do not apply to these topics, because it's not an opinion that would get your real name in jail. What can we do about these social exploits. Someone tell me please. It's driving me up the walls
- akoboldfrying 2mo ago
  There is no content in your response. At all. I honestly don't think I've come across a post this devoid of content on this site before. All I can perceive in it is a generalised hate towards some broader thing that you feel certain I'm consciously aligned with somehow, and that you think is inherently and obviously evil. Because... I don't use my real name on here? (Is your real name "hypfer"?) Because I don't have bricked hardware to back up my opinions? If you want to convince me or others that something I wrote is wrong, stop hyperventilating and engage with at least one of the specific claims in my post. For your own sake, I'd also suggest editing or outright deleting your original post.
  - hypfer 2mo ago
    It is correct that I have completely side-stepped your frame and not even attempted to engage with it. This is on purpose, because wanting people to engage with that specifically engineered frame is exactly the bad faith mechanism I've described. What is interesting is what happens when these tactics are called out in a meta comment like I did, because it's actually a common thing that people start flailing like this once you side-step the script that was supposed to be followed. Someone acting in good faith would not counter with an attack and a double-down like this, but with intent to resolve the situation (+ probably feeling a bit bad about an exchange having failed and being misunderstood). I also like the "hyperventilating" claim. Easiest way to get out of a situation is to invalidate the source, and easiest way to do that is to claim emotions. And the fake concern (for what, even?) of course. > For your own sake, I'd also suggest editing or outright deleting your original post. ___ Anyway. I think the convincing people is actually working quite well here. Though not in the sense you'd think. I'm just pointing a spotlight at what I believe is violating the spirit of the rules (while staying within the letter of the rules). What other people make out of that is their decision to make.
    - senordevnyc 2mo ago
      What on earth is happening here? I seriously have no idea what you're even talking about at this point. You seem to be five levels of meta deep and talking in circles about yourself? Very bizarre.
rcxdude 2mo ago
The comparison to padlocks and bolt cutters is not relevant, they are quite different shapes of problems. A certificate that is weak enough that it should not be trusted in any case where it matters is actively harmful, not just mildly less helpful. (This is true in general: if you add a trust signal that is mainly just a bit of effort to broadcast, you'll find that scammers and fraudsters will show that signal much more reliably than honest actors. For example, every email spammer has DMARC and DKIM set up absolutely perfectly)
- akoboldfrying 2mo ago
  I guess you're making the argument that, while padlocks sometimes protect things of low value, thus justifying the use of cheap, easily broken locks in those cases, the times where authenticity of an image is important are nearly always cases of high importance, meaning that there's no case where an assertion that's actually fairly cheap to forge (assuming a similar "lighter" glitch attack works on phones, less than $1000 for a modern smartphone that may get bricked, a soldering iron and an afternoon's work) makes sense? Perhaps so. It's certainly easy to think of images or video clips of very high importance, and outside of kids uploading AI clips to Reddit and pretending they're real, I can't think of any similarly low-stakes cases for image authentication. What do you think of my digital signature idea?
blincoln 2mo ago
> Does the existence of lock picks or bolt cutters render padlocks pointless today A padlock shouldn't be the only component of the bigger physical security picture. A random person carrying/using bolt cutters or trying to pick a lock looks suspicious, and should be noticed by on-site staff or whoever is monitoring the security cameras. If the padlock is decent, there will also be an inherent delay involved in bypassing it using those tools, which should increase the likelihood of the person being noticed. If the padlock is used in an unattended/unmonitored location (i.e. a remote vacation house with no neighbours and no security cameras), then the padlock is probably only good for keeping honest people honest. A lot of physical security => information security analogies are misleading for the same reason. In information security, it's very possible for an adversary to have effectively unlimited time to perform their attack (or to develop the means to perform the attack quickly). Imagine a scenario where any determined person could e.g. spend a month in their home workshop and develop a pair of gloves containing transducers that would vibrate any padlock open in seconds. They could mimic the action of using the key or entering the combination to avoid looking suspicious. Also, the gloves have a button that instantly creates another pair of the same gloves at no cost. How much value would a padlock have in that scenario? That's the kind of asymmetric playing field one has to consider in information security contexts.

hypfer 2mo ago

This is yet another of these absolutely caustic takes that come with a veneer of intellectualism, but actually just ignorantly deconstruct reality. Each of them weaponizing the rules of the platform that (for sensible reasons) demand you engage with the strongest interpretation of the message/argument you see. The asymmetry of effort there is unsustainable, and that's exactly the point. No idea how that could be solved. Maybe a meta comment like this one helps. __ I mean if you think about it, it shouldn't be possible for some anon account to drop this and sound like it's a worthy contribution to a debate against some real person with a real name, a track record and multiple thousand dollars of bricked hardware leading up to that assessment. (Nor would it make sense for a non-anon but equally empty account) It makes no sense, and the guarantees regarding protection of speech and all do not apply to these topics, because it's not an opinion that would get your real name in jail. What can we do about these social exploits. Someone tell me please. It's driving me up the walls

akoboldfrying 2mo ago
There is no content in your response. At all. I honestly don't think I've come across a post this devoid of content on this site before. All I can perceive in it is a generalised hate towards some broader thing that you feel certain I'm consciously aligned with somehow, and that you think is inherently and obviously evil. Because... I don't use my real name on here? (Is your real name "hypfer"?) Because I don't have bricked hardware to back up my opinions? If you want to convince me or others that something I wrote is wrong, stop hyperventilating and engage with at least one of the specific claims in my post. For your own sake, I'd also suggest editing or outright deleting your original post.
- hypfer 2mo ago
  It is correct that I have completely side-stepped your frame and not even attempted to engage with it. This is on purpose, because wanting people to engage with that specifically engineered frame is exactly the bad faith mechanism I've described. What is interesting is what happens when these tactics are called out in a meta comment like I did, because it's actually a common thing that people start flailing like this once you side-step the script that was supposed to be followed. Someone acting in good faith would not counter with an attack and a double-down like this, but with intent to resolve the situation (+ probably feeling a bit bad about an exchange having failed and being misunderstood). I also like the "hyperventilating" claim. Easiest way to get out of a situation is to invalidate the source, and easiest way to do that is to claim emotions. And the fake concern (for what, even?) of course. > For your own sake, I'd also suggest editing or outright deleting your original post. ___ Anyway. I think the convincing people is actually working quite well here. Though not in the sense you'd think. I'm just pointing a spotlight at what I believe is violating the spirit of the rules (while staying within the letter of the rules). What other people make out of that is their decision to make.
  - senordevnyc 2mo ago
    What on earth is happening here? I seriously have no idea what you're even talking about at this point. You seem to be five levels of meta deep and talking in circles about yourself? Very bizarre.

rcxdude 2mo ago

The comparison to padlocks and bolt cutters is not relevant, they are quite different shapes of problems. A certificate that is weak enough that it should not be trusted in any case where it matters is actively harmful, not just mildly less helpful. (This is true in general: if you add a trust signal that is mainly just a bit of effort to broadcast, you'll find that scammers and fraudsters will show that signal much more reliably than honest actors. For example, every email spammer has DMARC and DKIM set up absolutely perfectly)

akoboldfrying 2mo ago
I guess you're making the argument that, while padlocks sometimes protect things of low value, thus justifying the use of cheap, easily broken locks in those cases, the times where authenticity of an image is important are nearly always cases of high importance, meaning that there's no case where an assertion that's actually fairly cheap to forge (assuming a similar "lighter" glitch attack works on phones, less than $1000 for a modern smartphone that may get bricked, a soldering iron and an afternoon's work) makes sense? Perhaps so. It's certainly easy to think of images or video clips of very high importance, and outside of kids uploading AI clips to Reddit and pretending they're real, I can't think of any similarly low-stakes cases for image authentication. What do you think of my digital signature idea?

blincoln 2mo ago

> Does the existence of lock picks or bolt cutters render padlocks pointless today A padlock shouldn't be the only component of the bigger physical security picture. A random person carrying/using bolt cutters or trying to pick a lock looks suspicious, and should be noticed by on-site staff or whoever is monitoring the security cameras. If the padlock is decent, there will also be an inherent delay involved in bypassing it using those tools, which should increase the likelihood of the person being noticed. If the padlock is used in an unattended/unmonitored location (i.e. a remote vacation house with no neighbours and no security cameras), then the padlock is probably only good for keeping honest people honest. A lot of physical security => information security analogies are misleading for the same reason. In information security, it's very possible for an adversary to have effectively unlimited time to perform their attack (or to develop the means to perform the attack quickly). Imagine a scenario where any determined person could e.g. spend a month in their home workshop and develop a pair of gloves containing transducers that would vibrate any padlock open in seconds. They could mimic the action of using the key or entering the combination to avoid looking suspicious. Also, the gloves have a button that instantly creates another pair of the same gloves at no cost. How much value would a padlock have in that scenario? That's the kind of asymmetric playing field one has to consider in information security contexts.