1STnTENDERBITS
About
- Banned
- Username
- 1STnTENDERBITS
- Joined
- Visits
- 20
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 1,331
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 460
Reactions
-
Face ID attention detection security defeated with glasses and tape
StrangeDays said:1STnTENDERBITS said:Soli said:1STnTENDERBITS said:If someone doesn't read the article and they freak out, that's on them. If they don't read the article and say Face ID is crappy, so what? Just ignore them or if it bothers you, correct their incorrect assumption. Simply put, this is not a good look no matter how you look at it. A vaunted security feature bypassed by $2 worth of supplies. No 3D printer, no sophisticated masks or prosthetic pieces. No Mission Impossible dangling from a rope inches above the floor. Nope. Just a quick hop over to Walmart and you're good to go. As I said, I think Apple focused on high tech intrusion, not anything like this. Their fix shouldn't be that hard to come up with imo.StrangeDays said:You can also knock a person out and stick their finger on a fingerprint sensor.
You people try so hard.
Do you actually have a relevant opinion on this topic? Or are you going to continue throwing dirt to deflect. Let's see, you've already deflected using Samsung and Touch ID. What's next? Gonna say someone could hold a person at gun point and force them to give up their password. /s
Apple will likely resolve any exposed weakness in the “liveness” detection so it’s just academic anyway. Heckler self-pleasuring, nothing more. -
Face ID attention detection security defeated with glasses and tape
Soli said:1STnTENDERBITS said:If someone doesn't read the article and they freak out, that's on them. If they don't read the article and say Face ID is crappy, so what? Just ignore them or if it bothers you, correct their incorrect assumption. Simply put, this is not a good look no matter how you look at it. A vaunted security feature bypassed by $2 worth of supplies. No 3D printer, no sophisticated masks or prosthetic pieces. No Mission Impossible dangling from a rope inches above the floor. Nope. Just a quick hop over to Walmart and you're good to go. As I said, I think Apple focused on high tech intrusion, not anything like this. Their fix shouldn't be that hard to come up with imo.StrangeDays said:You can also knock a person out and stick their finger on a fingerprint sensor.
You people try so hard.
Do you actually have a relevant opinion on this topic? Or are you going to continue throwing dirt to deflect. Let's see, you've already deflected using Samsung and Touch ID. What's next? Gonna say someone could hold a person at gun point and force them to give up their password. /s -
Face ID attention detection security defeated with glasses and tape
Soli said:Let's be clear that this "hack" still needs the face of the person who is already keyed for the device. This only allows a person who wears glasses to allow someone to use their phone on their face to unlock Face ID without their consent if they happen to be unconscious after making a pair of augmented glasses, assuming that their picking up the iPhone doesn't trigger Face ID and the subsequently disabling of Face ID before they can execute this "hack". -
Face ID attention detection security defeated with glasses and tape
-
New 'Service' battery message in iOS pushes consumers toward official replacement
GeorgeBMac said:1STnTENDERBITS said:GeorgeBMac said:PART of the trouble here is, in fact, the fault of Apple:
While they "encourage" people to get repairs & upgrades done at an authorized center they neither enforce the policy nor (critically) publicize it up front. Instead they use a sorta passive - aggressive approach where, when there is a problem they say: "See, you didn't follow directions. It is your fault".
I think Apple and its customers would be best served by making it very clear up front that, while they won't block you from getting third party repairs that all bets, warranties, guarantees, assurances and everything is gone if you do. They need to do that BEFORE somebody buys an Apple product, not after they get the third party repair that impacts their product.
(I don't mean to absolve the person of responsibility for their actions. But that we will continue to have these debates and discussions until Apple makes their policy very clear UP FRONT.)
So how does that block Apple from doing just that: "provide consumers with clear and detailed information"?
If you mean voiding the warranty, Apple and a bunch of other companies already do just that if you break their rules.
Apple can't tie warranty validity to using 1st party or authorized parts and service. That would be a tie-in.