- Last Active
Expanding wearables and wearable sensors into the medical space is a massive growth market. Big enough for a trillion dollar market cap company to get interested in.
Unfortunately, sadly, they invited the crooks to the table. Tim Cook's a great company leader and I believe he does have his heart in the right place, but he's just brainwashed just like everyone else.
Working in the pharmaceutical industry he knows how to generate income.
Pharma industry makes money by keeping people alive & sick, dependent on their products.
Great move, Apple.
This is a massive disappointment.
IreneW saidExcept that it didn't.
This particular hack was extremely complex (please read the report), and worked on iOS only. No doubt the Chinese tried to attack an probably managed to attack Android as well, but there are no credible reports (that I have heard of).
How likely is that?
If indeed they spent nothing on Android then I'd be really worried as an Android user - it would mean they already own Android and know what's going on on those devices anyway. It would mean all Android devices are already hacked. As for Windows, open market prices for zero days are much lower than iOS so of course they'd do Windows on the side.
The ethically correct choice on Google's Project Zero side would have been to publish what they were publishing - a very detailed and interesting walkthrough of the iPhone exploit - but preface it with "Android and Windows were targeted on the same sites, but we want to focus on the iOS exploit here because (bla)... "
They needed to mention this. Otherwise, given the political nature and business impact of the message, they were lying by omission.
If they only wanted to report on the tech details, as is a valid choice for a GPZ blog, they needed to preface it with that sentence. Only a short mention.
GPZ isnt' required to explain every exploit, and there may be reasons to keep Android/Windows under wraps anyway, maybe not all is fixed, etc.
Or even worse, Android wasn't even targeted which would indicate a wide scale compromise of the entire Android platform in China. If you think about it not too unlikely given Google's contentious relationship with China, their lack of control over modifications made to Android, Chinese manufacturers having to submit to government demands, Chinese users not really caring very much about privacy (yet)... all these factors make an attack thinkable where Chinese government is deep into all Android update servers, Android second party stores, Android updates, etc, they could have a full global level exploit chain going on there. And GPZ would probably know about it but due to being unable to stop it, they wouldn't disclose it.
MplsP said:Does anyone else find it ironic that secure messaging apps are having troubles adapting to changes designed to improve privacy? (Yeah, I know that there’s more to the story than that, but I still found it a bit funny.)
Several of my wife’s relatives use WhatsApp, and she can practically see the battery level dropping on her phone she she uses it. It’s probably facebook doing all that data mining in the background...
It's different things for sure - I was using Signal and Wire before and as an app developer I was wondering how they're decrypting push notifications! It's almost magic. Imagine an encrypted message is coming in - then the phone would show a preview "encrypted message has arrived" - but it could not decrypt that message until the app in question actually runs and decrypts it, and delivers the result. Apple doesn't know what's in the message, so the push notification couldn't show a preview.
But what they all ended up doing is use that API to (1) silently receive the push notification (2) fire up their decryption engine, decrypt the message with the mentioned PushKit functionality and (3) issue a new, local, push notification with a decrypted message preview which then you, the user, would see.
So there was a lot of sophisticated magic happening to make it appear to "just work" with all end to end encrypted messaging systems. WA, Signal, Wire, etc. (not messenger or skype because that's not encrypted anyway)
But the same system - an app starting up and doing whatever it wants to do based on a push notification - could be abused for doing other things, tracking location data, etc. And my guess would be that WhatsApp, and basically all Facebook or Google owned apps would do that, and so abuse the system. The privacy thing doesn't bother me so much - I don't think there's any privacy left anyway - but it is very annoying that these apps will do things that have no benefit to me, but use my battery and drain my phone for no reason.
Overall happy Apple is cracking down, but I wish they'd invent something specifically for decrypting end to end encrypted messages. Apple's own iMessage can do it, they should create a specific API that can't be abused. Of course, that's not simple...
Peak performance is fine - when it comes to sustained performance you'll have to deal with thermal design, battery optimisations, etc - there'll be lots of tradeoffs going to be made by all manufacturers. Apple would probably go more conservative than most, having the smallest package for their phones. They'd optimise for real world use, where peak matters most. For games, if the FPS is > 60 no one really cares - so for example if faced with making the iPhone 1mm thicker to add more cooling vs losing some FPS that nobody will ever see anyway, they'd choose the former - obviously. They're so far ahead they will make choices that slow their results down.
What's missing from the AI overview here is the # of cores on the A12. I am guessing it's 6, then the massive lead in single thread vs the almost non-existent lead in multi thread would make sense - 8 cores vs. 6. Yeah just looked it up, the A12 has 2 high performance and 4 low performance cores.
So in the multi core tests here you see 6 Apple cores compete with 8 Qualcomm cores. Pretty impressive, Apple is missing 2 players yet still winning most tests.
Overall it seems the single core lead Apple has is how much faster Apple's processor design is vs the competition - they have a 1 - 2 year lead. Adding more cores of course will even the balances on multi core tests, but in real world apps, there's only so many cores that can be used effectively. Although there is a tendency of both apps and the OS to take more advantage of multi core designs, given that adding cores has been the main way to increase speed over the last 7, 8 years. (Intel and others)