Parsing arbitrary attacker provided data on the other hand is hard. I would guess the there’s an incorrect assumption that Bluetooth (and similar) radios are legitimate fcc approved hardware that isn’t actively malicious. I would suspect that if people put any thought into it they could do similar to any other Bluetooth device.
As the article notes, there is a simple way to stop this attack, which is to disable bluetooth. I already do that by default.
You are more concerned with someone opening your iPhone and putting a replacement malicious part than with someone pwning your iPhone with a $5 wireless device while in his car just driving by ?
Your threat model is upside down.
> there is a simple way to stop this attack, which is to disable bluetooth
This doesn't work, I've already tried it with my iPhone and a friend's Flipper.
I feel like you’re giving it an unfair shake. They didn’t just _build a toy_ those of us who originally supported through kickstarter saw a huge chunk of the work that went into building this device, the flipper team (10ish people?) has and continues to overcome so many crazy things (Covid, chips, supply chains, shipping) just to have the flipper device available world wide. The dev/modding community behind it is pretty amazing.
Full disclosure I was a very early backer. I have used my Flipper for fun and business. I can’t think of any other $120 _toy_ I use as much. Maybe I’m biased, and took your comment out of context.
It comes with a tamagotchi in the stock firmware so it's hard not seeing it as a device for fun and whimsy aka a toy.
In calling it a toy, I'm saying it's a B2C product, neatly packaged up with few sharp edges. It has an easy to use app. I don't have to dig deep into some cross-compiler setup to build firmware for it. Professional HW dev should be so easy!
My underlying point was that the Wired article and subsequent press has launched the product far further than originally thought.
Why does the word toy connotate so negatively for you?
Otherwise haven't found any use for it. I wanted to use it to clone my garage remote but couldn't get it to work.
In my opinion the whole appeal of the Flipper is that it bundles a bunch of radio gadgets and makes them easy to use and accessible. Are there better tools for each job? Definitely! But I presume setting up an SDR would have involved a fair bit more research and work. On the Flipper it took five minutes of trying out the different modes.
After purchasing a new apartment, I almost immediately made a backup of the wireless garage key and the RFID intercom key.
I'd be interested to know if disabling Find My will stop the attack. Also Airplane mode (you can enable WiFi while in Airplane mode, I think).
Also note that I specified I'm more concerned with verification of trusted hardware on my own device. Because the repercussions of malicious hardware implanted in my own device cannot be mitigated purely in software. Whereas verifying the integrity of an external device inherently depends solely on software, since there is no hardware interaction. I'm still concerned about it, in the sense that I'd like my OS to take best efforts to only "trust" external devices insofar as it can verify they're trustable, but I also accept that those devices are outside of my control and so any protocol for trusting them will have holes in it. My main requirement is that I should be able to opt out of the system if possible (by e.g. disabling bluetooth).
Bullshit.
Flooding the waves with radio interference (something that Bluetooth is particularly resistant to) would at most "deny service" of another device trying to connect to my iPhone through Bluetooth. It should NOT deny service of the _entire_ iPhone, which is what is discussed here. This is 100% preventable crap.
> the (arguably) fundamentally impossible task of verifying an external device is a "real" Apple device
Bullshit... and egregious considering you apparently think it is doable for replacement parts, but "fundamentally impossible" for networking devices. SSL is about 30 years old by now.
> I'm still concerned about it, in the sense that I'd like my OS to take best efforts to only "trust" external devices insofar as it can verify they're trustable, but I also accept that those devices are outside of my control and so any protocol for trusting them will have holes in it.
Also bullshit. All these holes are because of the proprietary extensions Apple puts on top of Bluetooth, which are exploited to no end. Notice my original post is about Apple not being able to identify when it is a (real vs fake) Apple device that is trying to initiate a connection. The protocol is 100% controlled by Apple.
Normal Bluetooth protocols and devices (which do not identify as Apple devices and are therefore subject to the standard Bluetooth pairing UI) are almost never the problem.
It also does not qualify as "pwning" your device, at least for my interpretation of the word "pwn."
In some countries for some age-groups it is implied that only children play with toys. Equating the use of it, to be someone who is a child.
While you can't control interpretation of the word, you're now aware of its connotations in certain cultures and how you can be interpreted. The burden of its possible misuse is now on you.
What a ridiculous and pedantic take. Language has always been contextual and nuanced. One of those contexts is obviously culture. In situations where clarity is needed, it can be sought.
There is no burden of misuse, much less more than any other word in english.
What does this mean? It sounds quite hostile.
“My house is on fire, but that is easily correctable by the fire department using water, a cheap and widely available commodity. The real concern is alien abductions in my neighborhood. We are defenseless against these!”
> It also does not qualify as "pwning" your device, at least for my interpretation of the word "pwn."
Random people on the same train as me being able to crash my phone fits my definition of “pwned”. And so does me having to use wired headphones as a countermeasure.
I can't opt out of a hardware attack once a malicious repair shop has replaced a critical module in my phone with their own.
Like I said, I'm more concerned with the latter. It doesn't mean I'm not concerned about attacks from external devices too.
So apparently you forever disable Bluetooth out of concern but at the same time think it is unavoidable to leave your iPhone unattended at random repair shops? At least the maid stuff (even if astronaut-level engineering) is remotely plausible.