181–190 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at figure 2 in the attached research paper. You'll find this is exactly how this model of iSight camera works. This interlock failed because the Micron sensor Apple used had software straps that could be reconfigured to have the sensor ignore its enable pin.
What is a software strap? Tried to google what that is and how it works, but I don't see much. Is it known by another term?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My current Thinkpad has a physical switch to disable radios. I'd like to have a physical 'privacy' switch that cut the power to internal microphones and cameras. To be security aware, this has to be an auditable hardware power switch, and not just an interrupt/driver/bios combination that could be bypassed. It's also prefereable for security to have a an off-by-default switch, than an activity light you might not not…
That's unfortunately the exception rather than the norm. I have seen laptops with switches for WiFi, and camera obturators, but manufacturers hardly think about these things. It's obviously not an Apple problem only, but it certainly hinders usability to have physical switches. Yet, I really wished they'd make that standard for all media peripheral (and not just on PC, but any device coming with these features). That…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buy hardware and software you, as the paying customer, remain allowed to control.
I'm assuming this is a dig at Apple. Care to show that any other laptop manufacturer's webcams are impervious to having their firmware overwritten?
I would be more concerned about the microphone. I can easily cover the camera with tape. Also, random pictures of me programming or reading HN are probably less damaging audio recordings of conversations I might be having.
My current Thinkpad has a physical switch to disable radios. I'd like to have a physical 'privacy' switch that cut the power to internal microphones and cameras. To be security aware, this has to be an auditable hardware power switch, and not just an interrupt/driver/bios combination that could be bypassed. It's also prefereable for security to have a an off-by-default switch, than an activity light you might not not…
I would be more concerned about the microphone. I can easily cover the camera with tape. Also, random pictures of me programming or reading HN are probably less damaging audio recordings of conversations I might be having.
My current Thinkpad has a physical switch to disable radios. I'd like to have a physical 'privacy' switch that cut the power to internal microphones and cameras. To be security aware, this has to be an auditable hardware power switch, and not just an interrupt/driver/bios combination that could be bypassed. It's also prefereable for security to have a an off-by-default switch, than an activity light you might not not…
I would be more concerned about the microphone. I can easily cover the camera with tape. Also, random pictures of me programming or reading HN are probably less damaging audio recordings of conversations I might be having.
The obvious solution is of course a bit of tape, but that's less convenient when you do actually want to use the camera. I notice that the EFF have some nifty little 'ultra-removable adhesive' stickers[1] that might do better, but what would be better is some sort of low-profile adhesive backed sliding cover. ... It appears I spoke too soon, there are already plenty out there, with mixed reviews. The 'iPatch'[2] look…
Honestly, I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to create a camera chip not susceptible to any software hack. The camera sensor needs electrical current to work. Simply place the LED inline or in parallel to the camera and you are done. Any time current is sent to the camera sensor, the LED cant help it but light up. My knowledge of electronics is limited, but I know for a fact that this can be achieved without th…
It's such an obvious solution that I really thought that WAS the case until just now. Why in the world would you tackle this problem any other way?
The hack is to override the camera to ignore that signal. It is a rather unique idea and probably not something anyone even considered at Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Simply place the LED inline or in parallel to the camera and you are done. Any time current is sent to the camera sensor, the LED cant help it but light up. So, upon (my incorrectly) presuming this was how it's already done in hardware and reading the headline of the article before I got to the text, I assumed they were turning it on and taking a single frame and turning it off fast enough that the LED was only on…
it is just as simple as put the LED in parallel, if you want it to stay on for a "little while" put a capacitor in circuit too. Extremely basic EE.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's such an obvious solution that I really thought that WAS the case until just now. Why in the world would you tackle this problem any other way?
Well, Apple and supporters (obligatory disclaimer: I own, and love, my rMBP, iPhone 5, and have two iPads in my house) have claimed that it was the case, and that it was physically impossible not to. Then again, Apple’s marketing for the iPhone 5s made many claims of “subdermal fields”, “RF micro fields produced by the human body”, and how, as a result, it couldn’t be faked. Except it could. Fairly easily. And withou…