I agree, it absolutely is interesting research, and I appreciate the detailed explanation that was published.
Although the proximity requirement severely limits the possible impact, it does make us think again about the security of our Wi-Fi networks, and as a result we may identify areas to improve, which is a benefit.
I agree with the industry response here. KRACK was the same thing. The author finds a vulnerability that is absolutely valid (no denying here), easy to exploit in a lab but very hard to exploit in practice. Back in the day, we did test our equipment for KRACK. We concluded that someone had to circumvent all our physical security barriers (challenging, but theoretically possible) to get close enough to an AP that would see sensitive stuff, had to know WHEN to do that, or at least plant a device that could easily be noticed, and they would still fail because we didn't have 802.11r enabled on those AP's.
Is it a concern? It depends on what you're doing. It is absolutely a concern if your corporation is handling ultra-sensitive information. However, you should also question your physical barriers in that case and whether you should use Wi-Fi at all for some aspects of your operation. Is it a concern for the vast majority of office workers or someone at home? Probably not; there would be easier ways to find a valid credit card number that don't involve the time and effort for a hacker to travel to your place where they could be discovered. There's no need to replace all your AP's with new hardware, although the Wi-Fi Alliance would love for you to do that.
Does this exploit warrant its own fancy name and domain name? As was the case for KRACK, I don't believe so. That should be reserved for vulnerabilities that have a severe impact AND are extremely trivial to exploit with no proximity requirements. If not, the fancy-name-vulns risk being deprived of their ability to get the attention that is required.
Oh, we can fulfill them. We'll resort to TLS inspection and force you to trust our CA on your device if you want to continue accessing our corporate network. And now we get to see (almost) everything again, like in the "good old days," not just your DNS queries.
Clear text DNS is the ultimate compromise, a gentleman's agreement if you want, that benefits everyone. We can see just enough to filter what we are required to by law on a best-effort basis, but we never see what you are actually doing thanks to the prevalence of TLS. DoH just broke that agreement.
It's a sad example of how a privacy solution like DoH will eventually result in less privacy, at least in some environments. And I'm not even considering how DoH will be the excuse for totalitarian regimes to up their surveillance antics.
I agree. For several years I have been looking on and off for a layman way to locate a source of a sound, but haven't found anything.
A solution like this could resolve many of the lingering "hum" cases. Often they are only heard by a few people, and those in charge of environmental control don't tend to take it seriously because "they don't hear it", or because they or the higher-ups are hiding something.
Acoustic consultants are extremely expensive, may require many hours if the sound is only apparent during random hours, and even then may come up with nothing.
An app that would at least be able to give a good estimate of the direction from where a sound is coming would be extremely helpful.
Here's hoping it also reduces the exorbitant amount of false positives we've been seeing with Stripe's fraud prevention services, which cost us a lot in lost legitimate sales.
I had a Little Printer, and I believe the article is slightly over-romanticizing the device. It was slow, not only the printing itself but there would also be a considerable delay before it would start printing as everything had to go through the cloud.
The printing paper had very uncommon dimensions and was hard to find. You could buy them from Berg, but they charged a lot for the rolls. There would also be a lot of paper waste due to the "face" that needed to be printed after every job. Cute, but no practical use.
In the end, however, it did what it advertised, and it did so with remarkably few of the hiccups that were (and are still) common for the IoT devices of the time; it was a good "version 1" for an IoT device. It's unfortunate that they never got to make a second version.
After the project was shuttered I bought an Epson TM-T20II. It prints from the LAN, it prints extremely quick, and the standard paper dimensions that it uses are easy to find on Amazon. It doesn't print a cute face after every job, though, but you can buy a buzzer add-on to make it beep after every job if you want.
If the item you're ordering is out of stock or unavailable to ship immediately, the shipping method time starts when the item ships. For example, it will take two business days after an item ships to reach you with Two-Day Shipping.
Amazon could easily make the case that even though the item you ordered was "in stock," it was still unavailable to ship immediately due to warehouse backlog or other operational reasons.
They did, but they also wasted a lot of time in January, allowing the virus to travel the world. But as you mentioned, other nations made similar mistakes, and they had the benefit of being warned.
However, when it comes to the question of responsibility for preventing a third SARS outbreak originating from China, the answer lies with the CCP.
I agree, demonizing the Chinese people is the worst thing anyone can do. They didn't want this virus either, but they taught us how we can contain it, and they paid the price with countless human lives.
The CCP is the one that needs to be made responsible. However, they will label any attempt from the west as racism towards the Chinese, to avoid having to take up that responsibility.
Change will only happen when it doesn't look like the CCP is losing face by listening to what the west is dictating. Economic sanctions are the alternative, but that would threaten the supply of cheap Chinese labor.
Absolutely, but Whatsapp it isn't distinguishing any less between Whatsapp users and non-Whatsapp users.
Messages doesn't entirely cut you off from people who don't bring money to Apple, and it doesn't require another app to communicate with them. It will handle and integrate it all in the same interface with iMessage, seamlessly switching in the background to make that possible. Whatsapp, OTOH, plainly refuses to let you interact with anyone who prefers not to accept an intrusive TOS and bring in (ad) money to Facebook.
I agree that both apps have different approaches and both have pros and cons, but I don't support the suggestion that Whatsapp, or any similar app for that matter, is any less "vendor lock-in" than Messages.
> You seem to be attaching too much significance to the color.
I'm not. That is what the Twitter OP indicated as the actual reason.
He was left out "specifically because he was on Android and turned the thread green" (sic). Or in the student's own words: "we would start a new group chat, and the group would realize I was the reason it was green, and they would start another group chat without me". Nowhere is mentioned that the degraded experience is the reason.
It could be that that the SMS experience is the reason when it comes to adults who are mature enough to leave the green/blue behind them but have a lot less tolerance for poor UX.
But for teens - which is what this thread is about - I fully agree with OP's conclusion that the social stigma surrounding the color is the primary reason.
83% of US teens have an iPhone according to Piper Jaffray in April 2019 [1].
That number is biased, however, as 1) it's solely based on a survey done in high schools, and not every teen will feel comfortable admitting they have something else than an iPhone 2) the surveys are performed by DECA Inc. which is more affiliated with private schools and public high schools in affluent neighborhoods.
Still, I estimate that about 3 in 4 teens (and increasing) have an iPhone, either new or a model that was previously used by a parent who bought a new one. That's huge, and iMessage plays a very big role in that.
> If someone wants to join the chat, then its on them to get on board with what everyone else wants.
However, when a community of people chooses Whatsapp as the exclusive form of communication, everyone in that community is forced to get that app or be left out of the loop. Those who object to installing Whatsapp because of the serious privacy controversies surrounding its parent are left with no choice.
This is where Messages shines, as it doesn't exclude those who can't or don't want to get an Apple device. And while the SMS fallback is indeed degraded, it still fulfills its basic promise: quick textual exchange of information. Additionally, if the recipient does get excluded because of the degraded experience, it shifts the fault and liability for not-knowing from the recipient who didn't want to accept the WhatsApp TOS to the senders who didn't provide the information because they didn't like the green bubble, although I'm fully aware that that's not how it always plays out in reality.
Neither approach is ideal, but I believe it's more important that no one should feel forced to install a proprietary app they don't trust just so they can stay up to date with their community, even if they are the single person objecting.
TL;DR Even though it falls back to its most rudimentary form, Messages by default doesn't cut off people that don't bring in any money for its parent. WhatsApp does.
> Nobody was going to switch to an entirely different mode of communication just for my sake
Please elaborate. No iPhone user has to switch from the "iMessage" app to the "SMS" app to reach an Android user or include an Android user in a group chat. While it does indeed involve a different mode of communication, it's all handled seamlessly in the background from the same app.
In fact, if it wasn't for the coloring, they wouldn't even have noticed, except if you exchanged other data than pure text, but I can't imagine this being a real deal-breaker for planning?
Note how the Twitter OP also explained how they were texting the Android student from iOS until they decided to abandon him and create a new group. Not because they had to switch to another app to reach him, but "because he was on Android and turned the thread green" (sic).
That's not how it works. These kids didn't create the stigma for the green bubble. Popular culture did, big-money TV, movie and music productions did, and teens are the most susceptible.
Try finding a recent US-produced music video or hit movie/TV series that shows a green bubble (or Android for that matter, as it still has a higher market share).
That's subjective, but your observations are valid in many scenarios.
The point I want to make is that Messages is not preventing them from including Android users because they don't have an iPhone, which is a general misunderstanding that I often observe when talking with Android users who use Whatsapp or similar and is also recurring here. If the Android user gets locked out, it's because a human decided to, not because Messages refused to include that user based on ecosystem lock-in (unlike Whatsapp).
However, like Twitter OP, I can testify that teens attach a lot more weight to the blue/green than they should. But then again, it's everywhere in popular culture. Try finding a recent hit movie/TV series or music video, produced in the US, that shows green bubbles (or Android for that matter, even though it has a higher market share).
The same applies. Messages can perfectly handle group messages that include a mix of iOS and Android users. Unlike Whatsapp, Messages doesn't require that every participant has Messages, nor that they have an iPhone. Messages will send each and every group message to every Android user in the group using SMS.
But it will color the bubble green. And that's why they get locked out.
I do notice a pattern of misunderstanding that I've also observed when talking with Android users IRL.
iMessage is very different from Whatsapp. For starters, there is no dedicated iMessage app. iMessage is managed from the iOS Messages app, which handles both iMessage and SMS. It's very good at managing both from one unified interface. In fact, it's so good that it uses arbitrary coloring of messages so you can see what message was sent through iMessage and what message was sent through SMS, because you would often not be able to tell otherwise as it's all in the same interface.
A lot of caveats apply here, but broadly speaking, while an iMessage user is typing a message, Messages will contact Apple to check if the recipient is also an iMessage user. If yes, it will try to send the message through iMessage and color the text bubble blue. If no, it will go through SMS and the bubble gets a green color. If iMessage fails in the first scenario, Messages will offer to revert to SMS.
So unlike Whatsapp, Messages doesn't care if the recipient has iMessage or not. And it also does not care if the recipient has an iPhone or not. It will get the message over regardless, as long as the recipient can receive SMS, which any Android phone can. Whatsapp, OTOH, does put the onus on the recipient to have the app. In other words: when it comes to the recipient, Messages (the app) is actually a lot more inclusive than Whatsapp (the app).
These HS teens aren't locking others out because they can't text their Android friends. They perfectly can, as OP from the Twitter thread also acknowledges, from the same app that they use to text their iPhone friends. They lock them out because Messages colors the bubbles green, which has become a social stigma in our high schools. Nothing more, nothing less. So it is not a technical limitation, and neither is it a cost issue, as virtually all wireless plans include unlimited (SMS) texts in the US. It is purely a human factors issue, which teens of all times and generations have been very prone to. As sad as it is.
Although the proximity requirement severely limits the possible impact, it does make us think again about the security of our Wi-Fi networks, and as a result we may identify areas to improve, which is a benefit.