or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by EricTheHalfBee

That's not what I said. There's a difference between having APIs available to a developer to use features, and a developer having access to the actual source code for the OS.There's no public specification for Apples Secure Enclave. In fact, reading articles about Apple encryption this becomes very clear. While many understand the basic concepts, it quickly turns into a "we don't know how A or B works, but we have an idea" situation.It will always be easier to exploit a...
The TrustZone that had a vulnerability discovered and had to be patched?https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-14/materials/us-14-Rosenberg-Reflections-On-Trusting-TrustZone-WP.pdfhttp://www.droid-life.com/2014/08/08/qualcomm-issues-statement-on-dan-rosenbergs-trustzone-vulernability/Here's an earlier success getting into TrustZone to unlock a device.http://blog.azimuthsecurity.com/2013/04/unlocking-motorola-bootloader.htmlSamsung also uses TrustZone with KNOX, and we all know...
Another issue is how does Google securely store fingerprint data? Apple has the Secure Enclave (which also performs other functions besides Touch ID, such as encryption). This is a custom piece of hardware inside their processors.   The only way Google could make this work properly is if they designed some sort of hardware standard that companies like Qualcomm, Samsung, Mediatek and other ARM processor builders would follow and add to their own processors. This way they...
Hmmm.   Google publishes the source code for Android so OEMs can take it and get it working on their devices.   I wonder how many people are going to start looking at the source for fingerprint scanning to look for ways to capture users prints? Unless Google puts this in Google Play Services (which means OEMs using AOSP won't get this feature).
She should have went to work for Google instead.
Damn. I was planning on getting a MacBook Pro last week when the rumors of a new one came out. So to my surprise, the rumor was right. Then the price increase.
How ironic. Just like commenters who claim "it doesn't work for me, must not work anywhere else in the world".
So where are the idiots who thought Hogan was a biased juror and Samsung should get a retrial because of him? Guess that argument didn't fly with the appeals court either.
 Do you not remember this? http://allthingsd.com/20120720/google-claims-popularity-has-made-some-apple-patents-de-facto-essentials/
 According to Google, if you create something that could be considered a "fundamental technology", then you should be forced to license it to everyone as a SEP, even if you don't want to declare it as such.
New Posts  All Forums: