546
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
546 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
34781 readers
243 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It absolutely could, if the processor trusts that the data coming from the faceid sensor is accurate, the faceid sensor can simply lie. You’re removing a layer of defense, which necessarily impacts security
What’s the faceid sensor going to do, brute force a damn cryptographic collision with the cyphertext of your faceid?!
If you have even the first fucking clue, even in the broadest of strokes, I’d really be interested in hearing about how this would actually work.
I think he think the face id just says "yeah, that's right, unlock" and the phone unlocks. So if you put in a custom one that always says "yeah unlock" it will just always unlock. As if the person putting in the thing couldn't see the data on your storage anyway