or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

Yes - as expected, they tested extensively and the design meets their strength criteria. Now, one can argue about whether those criteria are appropriate but, given the forces apparently applied by others to make these phones bend, I see no evidence that they are not.
Presumably, by this argument, anyone using strong cryptography is placing themselves above the law. Is it illegal to "place yourself above the law", whatever that means?
OK. Now you've read the details - bear in mind that this is a proof of principle demonstation, combined with an assumption that malicious apps intended to do this might get past the screening process. No demonstration of actual implementation, but an opinion that they would be hard to detect if the code were obfuscated. Maybe true, maybe not.In any case, if a third party website asks for your bank login details (for example) - do you think it is the fault of the browser if...
Of course I read it, and Hockenberry's blog. I guess that you guys didn't. My comment describes exactly what this amounts to - if you let a third party app act as your web browser and then enter authentication details on a website, it can see them and capture them. Don't do that.
 Really? There's a vulnerability if an app asks for your login details to a website account and you provide them? BGR really is a sad excuse for a news website.
 Definitely - send location on shut down would be very useful. An optional "send location at set intervals" would also be nice.
 I'm sure that they did exhaustive studies, both computational and experimental, on the strength of the device, and concluded that it was strong enough. And the video that Gatorguy linked to suggests that it is, since the applied force (100 lbs) seems unreasonably high to apply to an object in a pocket or, in any situation for that matter to a phone. In addition, while they say that there was residual deformation, it's not visible in the video, and is obviously less than...
 Interesting. Definitely a more controlled test, and all three phones survived impressively considering that they applied 100 lbs force - equivalent to a small person standing on the middle of the phone. The stated deflection measurements seemed to be incorrect (underestimates) especially for the Samsung, possibly due to the non-uniform deformation that it exhibited. And in the post-test shots, if there was any residual bend on the iPhone 6 then it was not discernible....
 Unfortunately the logical extension of that argument implies that one should not be able to determine if an email address is valid, which would contravene RFCs 5321 & 5322, and so there are other non-rate-limited ways to achieve that anyway. I don't think it is reasonable to regard email addresses as secure information.
So was it tax evasion or tax avoidance? One being entirely legal, of course, and any company not making its best effort to minimize tax burden is failing its own shareholders.
New Posts  All Forums: