|
| ▲ | mmh0000 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Maybe E2E, but the data eventually has to be decrypted to read it. Then you learn that every modern CPU has a built-in backdoor, a dedicated processor core, running a closed-source operating system, with direct access to the entire system RAM, and network access. [a][b][c][d]. You can not trust any modern hardware. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture_family#Securi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_privacy_of_iOS |
| |
| ▲ | dmitrygr 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Some of those things are not like the others. TrustZone is not a dedicated core. It is a mode of the CPU, akin to x86's SMM |
|
|
| ▲ | greentea23 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What you cited is for data on a device that was turned off. Not daily internet connected usage. No one is saying you have no protection at all with Apple, it is just very limited compared to what it should be by modern security best practices, and much worse than what can be achieved on android and linux. |
| |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > much worse than what can be achieved on android and linux. * Certain types of Android |
|
|
| ▲ | natch 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| E2E encrypted is nothing if key escrow is happening. Why did they change their wording from: Nobody can read your data, not even Apple to: Apple cannot read your data. You know why. |
| |
| ▲ | ajam1507 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | When did they change their wording? | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If they didn't want you to think key escrow might be possible, why wouldn't they just leave the wording the way it was? Why go through the effort and thereby draw attention to it? The court system doesn't use sovcit rules where playful interpretation of wording can get a trillion dollar corporation out of a lawsuit or whatever. |
|
