6 ms·

> by mitming the bus between the iris scanner and the rest of the unit, and making it report fresh unique scans Hmm, I wonder if the worldcoin team also though

> by mitming the bus between the iris scanner and the rest of the unit, and making it report fresh unique scans Hmm, I wonder if the worldcoin team also thought of that possibility? (Yes, they did, the iris processing is done inside a hardware enclave so that the obvious attack is not possible) https://whitepaper.worldcoin.org/technical-implementation https://whitepaper.worldcoin.org/technical-implementation I am broadly anti-Worldcoin but it is reasonably competently executed at a technical level. It would be good to understand what they actually did before declaring it to be impossible.

Retr0id 3y ago
Hardware enclaves are never 100% impenetrable, it comes down to making the cost of attack greater than what an attacker expects to gain. Traditional card payment terminals use nominally secure hardware and yet struggle with that tradeoff to this day, and I'm not convinced WorldCoin will do any better. The SoC they're using, the Jetson Xavier NX, is a cousin of the very thoroughly pwned (secure enclaves and all) TX1. Further, they don't describe how the busses connecting the sensors to the SoC are encrypted and/or authenticated, which leads me to believe that they are not. Intel gave up on shipping SGX in consumer devices because (imho) shipping secure enclaves directly to "adversaries" (the consumer being an adversary under the SGX threat model) proved too difficult to maintain.
- Retr0id 3y ago
  They talk about a future bug bounty program - I'm certainly intrigued, and if the up-front hardware costs aren't too high I might give it a go.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  > (the consumer being an adversary under the SGX threat model) proved too difficult to maintain. This is what's wrong with so much of this "security" tech. It's not for our security but for that of the businesses and their business models behind it.
algorias 3y ago
> I am broadly anti-Worldcoin but it is reasonably competently executed at a technical level. It would be good to understand what they actually did before declaring it to be impossible. +1 to this. I'm very skeptical of the project (even though I know some of the people working on it), but the problem space is extremely hard and they're giving it an actual shot. If you can think of a potential problem in 5 minutes, I guarantee you that they've thought of it too.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  I'm sure they are. But I'm not worried about them failing. I'm worried about them succeeding.
epolanski 3y ago
Can't I just bypass it with some contact lenses that distort the scan and make it unique?

Retr0id 3y ago

Hardware enclaves are never 100% impenetrable, it comes down to making the cost of attack greater than what an attacker expects to gain. Traditional card payment terminals use nominally secure hardware and yet struggle with that tradeoff to this day, and I'm not convinced WorldCoin will do any better. The SoC they're using, the Jetson Xavier NX, is a cousin of the very thoroughly pwned (secure enclaves and all) TX1. Further, they don't describe how the busses connecting the sensors to the SoC are encrypted and/or authenticated, which leads me to believe that they are not. Intel gave up on shipping SGX in consumer devices because (imho) shipping secure enclaves directly to "adversaries" (the consumer being an adversary under the SGX threat model) proved too difficult to maintain.

Retr0id 3y ago
They talk about a future bug bounty program - I'm certainly intrigued, and if the up-front hardware costs aren't too high I might give it a go.
wkat4242 3y ago
> (the consumer being an adversary under the SGX threat model) proved too difficult to maintain. This is what's wrong with so much of this "security" tech. It's not for our security but for that of the businesses and their business models behind it.

algorias 3y ago

> I am broadly anti-Worldcoin but it is reasonably competently executed at a technical level. It would be good to understand what they actually did before declaring it to be impossible. +1 to this. I'm very skeptical of the project (even though I know some of the people working on it), but the problem space is extremely hard and they're giving it an actual shot. If you can think of a potential problem in 5 minutes, I guarantee you that they've thought of it too.

wkat4242 3y ago
I'm sure they are. But I'm not worried about them failing. I'm worried about them succeeding.

epolanski 3y ago

Can't I just bypass it with some contact lenses that distort the scan and make it unique?