It happened with Face-Time, which turned out to never have been tested
(which Google's Project Zero proved beyond any doubt).
Most of the FaceTime code had _never even once_ been put thru a QA cycle!
At that time, Apple didn't object to the facts - Apple merely said that
they wished Google hadn't told the world of their shoddy QA until after telling Apple (which, of course, Craig Federighi already knew since we have his internal emails lambasting the utter lack of any QA on FaceTime).
Now... the same thing happens with Apple's so-called 'secure messaging'.
<https://9to5google.com/2023/12/09/apple-beeper-mini-imessage/>
*Does it scare you that Apple's so-called "secure flagship products"*
*continually get broken into by mere children?*
Apple said they blocked it because they were worried about metadata & spam.
Apple said they blocked it because they were worried about metadata & spam.
You're falling for its FUD based casting.
I read the article. It's not FUD. It's real. It's a quote direct from
Apple. What 'meta data' are you aware of that Apple is worried about?
You're misunderstanding the difference between Apple's genuine concerns
and the troll attempting to amplify this event into something it most certainly is not.
Using <news:GQndN.1636$taff.1273@fx41.iad>, Alan Browne wrote:
Apple said they blocked it because they were worried about metadata &
spam.
You're falling for its FUD based casting.
I read the article. It's not FUD. It's real. It's a quote direct from
Apple. What 'meta data' are you aware of that Apple is worried about?
It happened with Face-Time, which turned out to never have been tested
(which Google's Project Zero proved beyond any doubt).
Most of the FaceTime code had _never even once_ been put thru a QA cycle!
At that time, Apple didn't object to the facts - Apple merely said that
they wished Google hadn't told the world of their shoddy QA until after telling Apple (which, of course, Craig Federighi already knew since we have his internal emails lambasting the utter lack of any QA on FaceTime).
Now... the same thing happens with Apple's so-called 'secure messaging'.
<https://9to5google.com/2023/12/09/apple-beeper-mini-imessage/>
*Does it scare you that Apple's so-called "secure flagship products"*
*continually get broken into by mere children?*
Using <news:xlrdN.4233$5Hnd.2261@fx03.iad>, Alan Browne wrote:
I read the article. It's not FUD. It's real. It's a quote direct
from Apple. What 'meta data' are you aware of that Apple is worried
about?
You're misunderstanding the difference between Apple's genuine
concerns and the troll attempting to amplify this event into
something it most certainly is not.
The concerns are direct from Apple and they're quoted in the article.
What I'm asking you is to help clarify those concerns direct from
Apple when it was quoted in the article as having said "Beeper
techniques posed significant risks to user security and privacy" and
when it said "these techniques posed significant risks to user
security and privacy, including the potential for metadata exposure."
Since we're discussing the company's own words quoted in the articles,
what do you think it meant by posing "significant risk to metadata
exposure?"
Isn't the meaning obvious? Seems like common sense to me: due to the techniques used, a third party may have access to metadata of the
messages sent through the service which is a security and privacy risk
to Apple's customers.
On 2023-12-10, david <this@is.invalid> wrote:
Using <news:xlrdN.4233$5Hnd.2261@fx03.iad>, Alan Browne wrote:
I read the article. It's not FUD. It's real. It's a quote direct
from Apple. What 'meta data' are you aware of that Apple is worried
about?
You're misunderstanding the difference between Apple's genuine
concerns and the troll attempting to amplify this event into
something it most certainly is not.
The concerns are direct from Apple and they're quoted in the article.
What I'm asking you is to help clarify those concerns direct from
Apple when it was quoted in the article as having said "Beeper
techniques posed significant risks to user security and privacy" and
when it said "these techniques posed significant risks to user
security and privacy, including the potential for metadata exposure."
Since we're discussing the company's own words quoted in the articles,
what do you think it meant by posing "significant risk to metadata
exposure?"
Isn't the meaning obvious? Seems like common sense to me: due to the techniques used, a third party may have access to metadata of the
messages sent through the service which is a security and privacy risk
to Apple's customers.
Using <news:xlrdN.4233$5Hnd.2261@fx03.iad>, Alan Browne wrote:
I read the article. It's not FUD. It's real. It's a quote direct from
Apple. What 'meta data' are you aware of that Apple is worried about?
You're misunderstanding the difference between Apple's genuine
concerns and the troll attempting to amplify this event into something
it most certainly is not.
The concerns are direct from Apple and they're quoted in the article.
What I'm asking you is to help clarify those concerns direct from Apple
when it was quoted in the article as having said "Beeper techniques posed significant risks to user security and privacy" and when it said "these techniques posed significant risks to user security and privacy, including the potential for metadata exposure."
Since we're discussing the company's own words quoted in the articles, what do you think it meant by posing "significant risk to metadata exposure?"
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 04:23:40 |
Calls: | 6,666 |
Files: | 12,213 |
Messages: | 5,335,879 |