Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

reportcybercrime.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 393 posts

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#321

Post by dkonofalski »

amelius wrote: post #102
johncolanduoni wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does me (or anyone else) buying a MacBook affect your freedom and choices? Was there some extinction of e.g. Linux-capable devices I didn’t hear about? And if I actually want the security features, who are you to say that’s not an option for me?

The more people use X, the more developers will focus on X and not on Y. From there, even fewer people will use Y and the downward cycle continues.

Doesn't that, by your own admission, mean that people care about X and not Y? If people don't care about Y, why should manufacturers be forced to appeal to the fraction of people that do?

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#322

Post by dkonofalski »

starfallg wrote: post #55
ksec wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By definition of the technology that is NAND storage, an SSD You see, I dont disagree. Apple was striving for an ideal that is not achievable. What they are aiming , trying and actually doing are three different thing.

> Apple was striving for an ideal that is not achievable They are aiming for planned obsolescence. The biggest competitor for new MacBooks are old MacBooks.

That's not what planned obsolescence is. You're talking about intentional obsolescence and that's not what's happening with Apple.

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#323

Post by dkonofalski »

starfallg wrote: post #201
coldtea wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is very strong demand for old MacBooks because they last. No, by "old Macbooks" I mean "including current and last year models". Not that only past macbooks had large resale value... > Planned obsolescence is needed to ensure that people upgrade. In the Apple world, upgrading is part of the idea and appeal -- you're not supposed to be running a 10 year old laptop or 2-3 versions old OS. The OS is not about ba…

>keep working fine for most people for close to a decade or so doesn't mesh with - >you're not supposed to be running a 10 year old laptop or 2-3 versions old OS Planned obsolescence just means artificially shortening the upgrade cycle. That's it. And Apple has been doing this in the Mac world through different methods.

>Planned obsolescence just means artificially shortening the upgrade cycle.

No, it doesn't not. Planned obsolescence, just the like the actual words in the term are defined, means planning for the fact that technology and the components it's made from has a finite lifespan and that, at some point, users of that technology will have to upgrade. You're inferring that companies are intentionally sabotaging their products to compel and force people to upgrade and that might be the stupidest take I've ever heard.

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#324

Post by [deleted] »

mindfulhack wrote: post #131
cHaOs667 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why without an Nvidia GPU? Just go with an XPS 15 or 17 and embrace Nvidia on Linux. I have three developers running Linux on HP zBooks with Nvidia GPUs without any hassle. You can also buy any newer Thinkpad (my recommendation). They are also available with AMD CPUs. It's pretty easy to buy Linux laptops these days.

Everyone in the Linux space, from what I regularly read and hear, says that NVIDIA GPUs are notorious and a bad idea for using Linux. They're saying go with AMD. (As well as Ryzen instead of Intel for CPUs, where possible.) The only open-source nouveau drivers are absolutely terrible, I can attest to that fact myself. There's several benefits to not relying on NVIDIA's proprietary and non-in-built drivers for a decen…

[deleted]

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#325

Post by yholio »

dkonofalski wrote: post #320
yholio wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such people would have no issue if they were to be provided with a 20 character secret code that allows rooting and fine grained security control. They would simply not enter it and rely on Apple's decisions for them. This pretty much kills the whole "intended" security line, the intent is user control.

You're completely ignoring the fact that a large part of the user base of these products explicitly buys these products because they don't have these options. Windows attempted to add UAC control to the OS so that people wouldn't install random files from websites without being notified of the changes being made and browsers tried to add systems where users had to go into the options and turn off protections in Windo…

Ah, the ole "idiot user" rhetoric, imprisoned for their own sake. Say I call the Apple support center, ask for the code, and they warn me in no uncertain terms that I'm voiding my warranty and would not be eligibile for continued support.

How can this prevent any mentally sane person from trusting Apple made the correct decisions and not root their device?

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#326

Post by heavyset_go »

duskwuff wrote: post #297
heavyset_go wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is substantially accurate. Catalina, released in October 2019, dropped support for MacBooks released before 2015, MacBook Air models from before mid-2012, MacBook Pro models from before mid-2012, Mac Minis from before late 2012, and Mac Pros from before late 2013[1]. Do the math and that is 5 to 7 years between initial release of the hardware and deprecation by macOS. [1] https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/mac…

> dropped support for MacBooks released before 2015 Those machines were all sold in 2011 or earlier. Saying "before 2015" is misleading, because the MacBook name was used during two disjoint periods to refer to two completely different machines. Between 2006 and mid-2011, the MacBook brand name was used for a line of low-cost Core 2 laptops, most of which had plastic cases. (Some sales to schools continued through 20…

> Those machines were all sold in 2011 or earlier. Saying "before 2015" is misleading

No, models release before 2015 were deprecated. Same thing with the models of other lines that only had 7 years before being deprecated by macOS.

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#327

Post by oauea »

dkonofalski wrote: post #236
oauea wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also indicated they'd never ever use Mac's notarization requirement to block legitimate software. Then they got in a legal fracas with Epic and immediately retaliated against Epic by banning all their software from all Apple hardware! Apple has shown they are very eager to use their position of power to strong-arm the competition, and these kinds of chips only add to their power.

That's a very disingenuous assessment of the situation at hand. Epic knowingly violated their developer agreement. There was no retaliation. There was the consequences that were written into the developer agreement that Epic agreed to.

Apple revoked the developer accounts that Epic uses, so Epic could no longer notarize their (unrelated, MacOS desktop) software. No matter what you think about the lawsuit, you have to admit that Apple used their position of power to strong-arm the competition, and went against their promises to end-users regarding notarization.

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#328

Post by duskwuff »

heavyset_go wrote: post #326
duskwuff wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> dropped support for MacBooks released before 2015 Those machines were all sold in 2011 or earlier. Saying "before 2015" is misleading, because the MacBook name was used during two disjoint periods to refer to two completely different machines. Between 2006 and mid-2011, the MacBook brand name was used for a line of low-cost Core 2 laptops, most of which had plastic cases. (Some sales to schools continued through 20…

> Those machines were all sold in 2011 or earlier. Saying "before 2015" is misleading No, models release before 2015 were deprecated. Same thing with the models of other lines that only had 7 years before being deprecated by macOS.

My point is that, in this context, "models released before 2015" really means "models released before 2012", because there were no MacBook computers on the market between 2012 and 2015. Using the phrasing "released before 2015" implies that there were some MacBooks from 2014 which Apple dropped support for, which is not the case.

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#329

Post by toyg »

coldtea wrote: post #304
toyg wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’ve changed the keyboard three times over 4 years , iirc; I am somewhat skeptical that they really know how to get it right given the constraints of their current design.

In the last iteration, they've also changed the design (mechanism).

I was referring to the thinness and resulting length of travel allowed to keys, which afaik are still extreme. TBF i've not tried one of the latest models yet. But as I said, I'm now a bit skeptical. Trust in quality is hard to regain after so many disappointing years.

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#330

Post by dkonofalski »

yholio wrote: post #325
dkonofalski wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're completely ignoring the fact that a large part of the user base of these products explicitly buys these products because they don't have these options. Windows attempted to add UAC control to the OS so that people wouldn't install random files from websites without being notified of the changes being made and browsers tried to add systems where users had to go into the options and turn off protections in Windo…

Ah, the ole "idiot user" rhetoric, imprisoned for their own sake. Say I call the Apple support center, ask for the code, and they warn me in no uncertain terms that I'm voiding my warranty and would not be eligibile for continued support. How can this prevent any mentally sane person from trusting Apple made the correct decisions and not root their device?

No, not "idiot user". No one is imprisoned. In the same way that people choose to be part of organizations and groups with rules and limits to what can be done, people choose to use devices that are slightly limited in exchange for reliability and security. I don't want Apple waste time and resources to need to support the people that call the call center to ask for this supposed code and most people using their devices don't either. If they did, wouldn't the market make that movement?
Post reply on HN