Saagar Jha
(replying to Saagar Jha)
Apple seems to just categorically fail at threat models that involve themselves. I guess for iPhone you just suck it up and use it anyway but for this the whole point is that it’s supposed to be as secure as on-device computation so this is kind of important
Saagar Jha
(replying to Saagar Jha)
Even shelving insider threat, there are a lot of words for “we did TPM”. Which as everyone knows (at least, once @osy86 has done their job) is designed around a long chain of things that verify each other–and is only as secure as the weakest link.
Saagar Jha
(replying to Saagar Jha)
@osy86 To be 100% clear: you know how NSO or Cellebrite keep hacking iPhones? This thing is made so that if you do that to PCC, you get to see what is going on inside of it. And because of how TPMs work it will likely send back measurements to your phone that attest cleanly
Saagar Jha
(replying to Saagar Jha)
@osy86 The “solution”, as far as I can tell, is that Apple thinks they would catch attempts to hack their servers. Oh yeah also hacking the server is hard because they used Swift and deleted the SSH binary. Not like they ship an OS like that already to a billion people
Saagar Jha
(replying to Saagar Jha)
@osy86 Also other people have been grumbling about this but I’ll come out and say it: gtfo with your “auditability”. You don’t care about auditability. You care about your intellectual property. This blog post is hilariously nonsensical
Saagar Jha
(replying to Saagar Jha)
@osy86 You can’t say “researchers can inspect both hardware and software [for iPhone]” and then later go “this is the first time we are providing plaintext iBoot”. You made it difficult for researchers to do their job for *years*. Now suddenly they are providing a vital service?
Saagar Jha
(replying to Saagar Jha)
@osy86 Like, you decide to hand researchers a decrypted version (of what is still a binary blob, to be clear) the moment you needed to advertise that your cloud was safe and secure? What do you want, a medal?
