Post #1191831

2026-04-16 05:05 UTC

@codemonkeymike @coldclimate Hmm… for the hardware firmware I’d still want to have to unlock it on device rather than having an attack surface/backdoor from the internet to exploit. Apple had the issue a couple years ago with thieves exploiting the remote password change to workaround the phone protections. But I get how it sucks for this use case. Like a lot of things, for 99% of users who don’t care they should default to a version that’s secure from most thieves but not totally secure from government and then let the users who really care opt in to the stronger lockdown mode.

Replies (2)

@codemonkeymike@fosstodon.org 2026-04-16 05:14

@HitokiriEric @coldclimate yeah. I mean look. You can unsolder the t2 chip and reprogram it etc. Motivated thiefs can still do it. But was this when a problem? I really don't think it was. Again. Look at Chromebooks. They have a firmware level lock too that can't be hacked. And yet it can be decomissioned remotely when the org releases it. You're telling me apple couldn't do this?! For regular users? Its a racket

Open ##1191832
@0x00string@infosec.exchange 2026-04-16 06:28

@HitokiriEric @codemonkeymike @coldclimate i havent read most of this thread, but i read up to this point and i dont plan to read any more after writing this reply here, but i just want to say, the way you talk about people is extremely infantilizing. Like a lot of things, for 99% of users who don’t care they should default to a version that’s secure from most thieves but not totally secure from government i think like 99% of things you have a hard time with people because you see them as helpless baby sheep who need a nanny for lacking your superior intellect. and yeah im gathering all of this from reading on reply of yours on a website... but honestly dog i feel so confident in this assessment that i am quite sure i wont be the one thinking about it in an hour.

Open ##1191838