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

381–390 of 393 posts

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#381

Post by bosie »

Ottmar wrote: post #359
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea since I don't live in Vienna but afaik worse than in German/Swiss tech hubs but at a lower CoL. Whether the overall salary/CoL ratio is a better deal for you here than in the other hubs really depends on how good your salary is and how much you'll spend.

Well, there is a variety of choices, there is a good selection of excellent coworking places in Wien, Salzburg, Graz. I used to live in Vienna, so found a few interesting places her https://www.matchoffice.at/mieten/coworking/wien-city

don't think that was the topic though?

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#382

Post by oauea »

dkonofalski wrote: post #372
oauea wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They revoked the developer accounts because Epic intentionally violated the rules of those accounts . What you're doing by blaming Apple amounts to blaming the police for arresting a criminal that broke the law. Epic knew ahead of the time what the consequences were for violating the agreement and they knowingly did that. There was no strong-arming involved. The judge even stated in her initial briefing that Epic ove…

Sure, whatever.

Apple promised to the users (not Epic) they would only use notarization to block harmful software. Epic's software is not harmful to the user, and the lawsuit didn't change anything about that.

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#383

Post by sangnoir »

EricE wrote: post #250
Karunamon wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a hardware vendor telling you what you can and can't do with the stuff you own is immoral.

Then don’t buy it? It’s not like Apple is the only vendor. Kind of hard to have diversity/options if everyone keeps insisting all vendors do everything the same way.

First sale doctrine says if I buy something, I now completely own it and I can do as I please with it, even if it goes against any of the former owner's wishes or intent.

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#384

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

sparker72678 wrote: post #241
Jnr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

De-capping would probably be much harder than rooting T2.

And both would be much harder than just holding a gun to someone's head until they give up their password.

I’m surprised that iOS still doesn’t support duress passcodes.

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#385

Post by fomine3 »

blacklion wrote: post #353
centimeter wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

luks or zfs.

I want not note, that ZFS is not full disk encryption. ZFS native encryption was designed to allow secure backups via "zfs send | zfs receive" mechanism, so it encrypt only data blocks, and not metadata. LUKS and GEIL are full-disk encryption systems, and if you need FDE, you must use them under ZFS, not ZFS native encryption.

Technically true but what is the situation that become problem?

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#386

Post by simonh »

saagarjha wrote: post #308
simonh wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a happy iPhone, iPad and Mac user but have also jailbroken some of my old iPhones before so they could be used by family in China. In the arguments about opening up the iPhone and forcing Apple to allow third party app stores and allow side loading I'm on Apple's side. I think Apple should decide what products they design, how they design them and what features they should have. If I like the feature set, I'll bu…

> The ability to side load apps would be a software feature that needs to be designed, coded, QA tested, secured etc. Apple of course has an internal version of iOS that lets you do this.

Would the current side loading capability, requiring a hard link to a Mac and an install of XCode, satisfy those calling for a side loading capability for consumers? I doubt it, but that's my point. Who gets to decide what satisfies any such requirement? Building in the features to support third party app stores is even more of a can of worms.

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#387

Post by starfallg »

dkonofalski wrote: post #379
starfallg wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Side effects. That's exactly why they do it. Sure it's a security chip but why is it they didn't make it so the owner can do a one-way unlock (like Android's bootloader unlock) so people can fix their own Macs? Because preventing repairs is one of the desirable side effect of this design.

Because even a one-way unlock can be exploited and is a vector for compromised security. Apple has no need to prevent people from repairing their devices. They lose money on most repairs they do. What they're concerned about is their brand. If someone gets their device repaired at a shitty shop that isn't Apple certified and uses parts that aren't real Apple parts (like every screen repair kiosk in your local mall),…

>Because even a one-way unlock can be exploited and is a vector for compromised security.

Evidence doesn't support this at all. When was the last root exploit due to an bootloader unlock?

Towing the Apple line gets you nowhere. There is overwhelming support for companies to allow for a right of repair. Most people don't have any issues with security advances, but they do have a problem with companies using this as an excuse to further lock-in to devices that are fully paid for by consumers.

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#388

Post by zigzaggy »

unsatchmo wrote: post #348
zigzaggy wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The T495 is my daily driver. I love this machine and I plan on using it for many years to come.

How can you all handle the low-resolution screen? I want one of those Lenovo laptops but with a higher resolution screen

Well I have slightly lower vision than most people so it prob doesn't bother me as much as it would most. But yeah that's an issue. I was actually so excited about the other components when I bought it that I kind of overlooked the resolution specs. I was / am disappointed about that aspect of it, but everything else is awesome.

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#389

Post by mceachen »

mcdevilkiller wrote: post #354
mceachen wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A ~2017 i7 is only 4% slower than a ~2019 i7: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700-vs-...

Userbenchmark is not a good site to use. Although it is typically the first search result, most hardware subreddits have banned it or issued notices on how biased or even false their content is (eg. An i3 considered better than a Ryzen 9 3900x).

Thanks for the heads-up, TIL.

Re: Apple’s T2 security chip jailbreak

#390

Post by tonyedgecombe »

heavyset_go wrote: post #376
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no evidence that is going to be the case. I can still use bootcamp on legacy machines, I don’t see that changing with the T2.

There are people who want to run Linux on their Macs with the T2 chip, but can't.

They can by turning off secure boot.
Post reply on HN