dpkonofa

17 ms·

211.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
You're literally responding to an article that shows that the situation you're describing would be impossible with this device. How does this have nothing to do with security?
212.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
The same way they argued it every other time this sentiment comes out. These choices are made for security and privacy reasons. A third-party can't compromise the hardware and a thief has no reason to steal a phone that they can't
213.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
>This anti consumer approach by Apple is why I refuse to buy anything from them. What is anti-consumer about this? I am a consumer and active user of these products and I want this posture when it comes to the security of my devices. I
214.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
>I've never been afraid of batteries compromising my system. Another case of "this doesn't affect me so there's no way anyone else would need it" that has recently plagued this site. This doesn't affect you
215.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
What a straw man! Coffee pods, automated litterboxes, dish washers, and all the rest don't carry an individual's entire digital life on them. You're literally comparing devices that really don't need any kind of security
216.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
You can care about security and privacy and also still care of ease of use. For 99.99% of their customers, encryption is enforced by default and being able to recover their data is more important than E2E encryption.
217.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
You just posted the article that this whole thread is based on. You just posted the author's post instead of the blog's rewrite of it. This makes it seem like this is a recurring problem yet there are only a handful of complaints.
218.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
>Apple in general has a poor track record of paying out bug bounties What is this based on? My understanding is that Apple pays out 99% of the reported bug bounties and that's only because they include multiple submissions in the to
219.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
You are correct. I did misunderstand that portion of it but that doesn't change the fact that Apple is willing to pay $100k for a bounty like that but no one else does and Apple's actions don't suggest at all that they won&#
220.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
They are not. They completely lack any nuance and are based on misunderstandings of both situations.
221.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
Why? What would be valuable about that? Specifically, what would be valuable about getting someone's GameCenter contacts? These aren't business or family contacts. These are people the person games with. It's a privacy viol
222.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
He doesn't have $100k on the line. That's ridiculous.
223.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
I have a feeling that HN recently had an influx of users from other sites. It seems like the exodus from Reddit, for example, has resulted in a significantly larger signal to noise ratio of comments. There's a lot more impassioned nons
224.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
>Seems that no credit, no bount, nothing, has become the way that Apple deals with the iBugs Hunters. Based on what? You can't possibly know anything about this bug or what stage of the reporting process it's in and Apple regul
225.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
You seem to be the only person here who actually read the article and understands what the stakes are here. Some of these comments are delusional .
226.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
>iOS “information disclosure” exploit (likely what this would have fallen under) Based on what? There's nothing to suggest that this falls into the category for an "information disclosure" according to Zerodium's elig
227.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
Not for this exploit. They pay more for code-execution exploits. No one is going to pay the sums you guys are thinking they will over a bug that gives you someone's GameCenter contacts . It's not a trivial bug but it's also
228.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
What suggests that any of this is "free work for a trillion dollar corporation"? Apple hasn't acknowledged that this person discovered this bug yet. They've only acknowledged that it existed and that they were going to p
229.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
I'm with you. I think these cheap, Apple-bashing blogs want to make this into a bigger deal but there are a few things that don't add up to make this the huge issue they think it is: 1. The bug lets you download contacts. Nothing
230.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
Nobody's going to pay $100,000 for a bug that lets you download someone's contact list.
231.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
They do actually ask before doing this. It's a question that you have to answer when you first updated to iOS 14 or that you answer when setting up a new iOS 15 device.
232.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
They're not pissing off users. Users overwhelmingly approve of the App Store process that Apple has in place and developers overwhelmingly benefit from the value of the customers Apple provides them. It's not about the lower margi
233.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
That's not true at all. They're not claiming they can't split it up technically. They're claiming that part of the end-to-end user experience is that users trust the App Store because Apple has oversight into the entire
234.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
I don't think you do. Stripe and PayPal are only payment processors. If Apple now has to allow other payment processors then they're either going to charge fees for hosting the files or they're going to charge fees for the
235.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
You edited your response because I specifically used the word "content" because that's what you used...
236.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
There's no leak of content. None of your content ever gets sent to Apple...ever.
237.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
No, they didn’t. Apple never gets any of the content on your device. They get signatures and, at best, a visual representation like a thumbnail.
238.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
This is wrong. Apple never gets the contents of the file. Read the white paper.
239.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
Yes. The only way they would get the signature and low-res version is if it’s already been identified as CSAM (with a 1-in-a-trillion chance of a false collision). If they’re not getting your content, it can still be E2E encrypted.
240.
by dpkonofa 5y ago
I don’t follow. This system is exactly what you’re describing. Apple is not able to access any of your data. The most they get access to is the signature of the file (which would already be matched with known CSAM content) and a potential t

More ›