Posted by imwally 1 day ago
There are already plenty of insurances that require you to submit claims through a smartphone app that tries to essentially do this by capturing sensor metadata etc. - those don't need to be nation-state resilient, just Joe the Crackhead Insurance Scammer resilient, so this works. Likewise, more and more things online require identity verification (either officially or disguised as age verification).
Edit: And while "a nation state actor can spoof this" is a problem for the journalism use case, the insurance/ID verification use cases are perfectly fine with anything that raises the bar but could be bypassed with enough effort. Also, the journalism use case suffers from the same fundamental issue all of these use cases suffer from: People will "verify" the picture by looking at the repost of a screenshot of the verification UI, not by verifying the original themselves.
You have it all wrong.
Apple Reference Image is not an id system; it's primarily a way to attest that the pixels recorded by the camera sensor have not been altered in any way; the pixels, metadata and timestamp are all cryptographically signed.
There's no way to link a reference image to a person; it's also not possible to determine if a pair of images came from the same device.
> And while "a nation state actor can spoof this" is a problem for the journalism use case
This is incorrect:
When the image sensor is first initialized in the factory, it creates a
cryptographic signing identity, sharing only the public key with the
factory. The SEP similarly creates a separately-attested signing
identity. These identities are bound together into the device manifest,
allowing us to later check whether a particular sensor and SEP are from
the same device.
The final signature on a reference image is a composite post-quantum
signature combining RSA-3072 and ML-DSA-87. To our knowledge, Apple
Reference Image is the only image provenance system that provides
quantum-secure defenses.
> Also, the journalism use case suffers from the same fundamental issue all of these use cases suffer from: People will "verify" the picture by looking at the repost of a screenshot of the verification UI, not by verifying the original themselves.
I would imagine there will be a way to confirm an Apple Reference Image on the web. Pretty soon, 3rd parties will be able to verify the image themselves:
Reference images can be viewed in the Photos app alongside the main
image, like a digital negative, to visually compare the two assets and
determine if any edits were made. APIs are available in iOS, iPadOS, and
macOS 27 for third-party apps to enable viewing of these reference images.> Apple Reference Image is not an id system
GP does not have it all wrong. A company desiring you to prove your identity often asks for a photograph of your government ID. Now that this is easily faked, it is reasonable to expect that the company will ask for a verifiably authentic photograph of your government ID.
That the Apple Reference Image itself is not traceable to the device/user is beside the point in this use case.
The image will be authentic, but an authentic image of a fake id isn't useful to them.
Also--only two iPhone models support this technology. It'll be years before the DMV or whoever could count on enough adoption before they could support it.
If someone took a picture of a fake ID in the past, this method will bring no benefit, it will just add Apple as a paid service-provider.
It also doesn't change the trust-relationship between the two parties: If I need to prove my identity by uploading a government ID, _I_ am doing the photo attestation that this is the ID matching the data I provided, with or without an Apple Reference image.
Interfacing with images is easy. Interfacing with NFC takes work. I have experienced precisely zero identity-verification workflows which NFC'd anything, and that includes my banks, which could easily ask for my debit card's NFC but don't.
If anything, verifying NFC is easier than images. Asking the chip in my identity card to provide a cryptographically-signed "This document belongs to Jane Doe" request is a handful of lines of code. Doing the same with images? Good luck coming up with an approach which isn't fooled by a photocopy!
Our national app for logging into government sites and confirming things also requires a step where the ID’s NFC is read to reach the highest trust level.
So it’s definitely becoming more and more common here.
I think processing that information is mandatory now, but probably was optional/largely unimplemented in 2012. But maybe I'm off by five years or so?
The CA public key I just got off my country’s website, they were kind enough to just publish it :)
The phone is just a relay to a remote server here, as newer ICAO machine readable travel documents intentionally don't support signatures/non-repudiation anymore, so you have to run the entire exchange against a component you trust (i.e. your server, not so much your app on a rooted/manipulated phone).
> There's no way to link a reference image to a person; it's also not possible to determine if a pair of images came from the same device.
Some banking apps nowadays ask you to upload a photo of your ID and then use the webcam/selfie camera to confirm that's it's really you (sometimes asking you to move your head in a particular way). But how trustworthy is that process really? Apple Reference Image could be (part of) a solution, by certifying that both images were taken by the same device around the same time.
This is explicitly not possible, as the post you were replying to pointed out.
You think that this won't be used as additional data by the various competing companies who have implemented "take a live still or video selfie of yourself with your phone and show us your ID cards" for identity verification purposes?
It’s possible for Apple, as stated in the blog post (e.g. “which lets the device later produce signatures that Apple can attribute to that specific phone”).
At least for the image itself, using direct projection onto the sensor (in a way similar to a retinal projector or film recorder) would be difficult to detect I imagine?
But at the end of the day, even if you manage to get a fake reference image, it's still on the person making the claim to show that the content of the image is real. A reference image of a document is useless, the physical document could be a forgery. A photo of people could be refuted with alibis during the timestamp window (max 15 minutes it sounds like?). A photo of property damage doesn't prove how or when it happened.
> a nation-state can't really do anything here unless they acquire alien technology.
Alien technology such as NSLs or supply chain attacks against Apple?
Apple knows the iphone the reference image was uploaded from, so, yes, there is.
It is probably possible for an entity to break it, but it would require live access to both Apple and the third party (Likely Cloudflare) servers. And that is assuming there is only one third party routing OHTTP requests, otherwise you would need to monitor all of them, in real time, since the requests are transient.
> The final reference image is instead signed by Apple’s signing service, after validation by PCC.
So, if compelled, Apple could theoretically tell someone if two images came from the same camera.
No they couldn't.
If you generate two SSH key pairs on your laptop, there's no way to confirm they were created on the same machine.
There's no device identifying data in a reference image, which is the point. The factory signature, the image sensor key, the Secure Enclave Processor key and all of the signing that takes place on PCC are all device-agnostic.
The reference image is processed and eventually signed by Private Cloud Compute's post-quantum signature using a hybrid MLDSA87-RSA-3072-PSS-SHA512 scheme.
So… it's not possible for Apple to know if two images came from the same iPhone.
When the user initiates developing a reference image, the device uploads the secure digital negative to Private Cloud Compute. PCC recomputes the digest embedded in the frame and verifies the sensor's signature over the pixels and that digest, verifying the certificate chain back to the sensor CA. PCC also verifies the SEP signature and chains it to the BAA CA, and it verifies the signature on the device manifest and chains it to the CA that signs device manifests at the factory. It then confirms that the sensor and SEP named in those chains belong to the same device. [...] If these checks pass, PCC then submits the commitment to our signing service, which signs it with a composite post-quantum signature using a hybrid MLDSA87-RSA-3072-PSS-SHA512 scheme. The signature is embedded in the JPEG, and the reference image is returned to the device, which associates it with the main photo from the original capture.
After the secure digital negative is successfully developed, it's automatically moved to the deleted photos folder."
So in the end it all depends on how much you trust Apple's cloud and PCC nodes. If there is a weakness in their services, Apple could record both the original signatures and their signature, and could prove whether two photos were made using the same lens/device and they could even trace it back to a specific device (by looking up the original signature + signing identity given their signature).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Anonymous_Attestation
it’s one step removed from identity.
fwiw i think this is an unambiguous improvement over current post-sensor attestations, it’s just good to explore the edges
We built Apple Reference Image to avoid using an explicit, public
credential for photographers, and to avoid even implicit public
association between different photos taken by the same sensor. The
final reference image is instead signed by Apple’s signing service,
after validation by PCC. That signature is backed by Apple’s
strongest technical guarantees.
Our implementation also protects the
confidentiality of the image itself, including from Apple. Merely
capturing a reference image should never expose the actual pixels to
Apple or anyone else. We achieve this through the exceptional privacy
properties of PCC — the nodes themselves are architected so that not
even Apple can access image data, just as Apple cannot see the
information processed for Apple Intelligence in PCC.It is for Apple, to the extend that if there are backdoors and weaknesses in their PCC, they could register a device signing identity to Apple signature mapping.
I think the line of reasoning is that you have to trust Apple anyway, since they could also roll out a malicious image to your particular phone, but I still feel like PCC is much harder to verify/audit than an iPhone already is.
Unless you use a friend's iPhone, or an iPhone you 'rented' for 5 minutes for $20 from someone on Craigslist or Facebook Marketplace to take a picture on and then Airdrop to you.
Perhaps do not be so literal: Airdrop, SMS/MMS/RCS, WhatsApp, Signal, etc:
Or you could just email/WhatsApp/... it.
Yup, you don’t even need nukes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compre...
They can then sign their own fraudulent images.
That's not how this works.
Let's pretend they're able to extract the sensor key and the SEP key. Then what?
An attacker won't have the ECDSA P-256 over SHA-256 signed timestamp token from the Apple Push Notification Service.
When Reference mode starts, the operating system supplies a SHA-256 digest to be embedded at a fixed location in the captured frame’s metadata. The digest is computed from the most recent secure timestamp, the device manifest, and the device's secure boot manifest.
More encryption and checking happens until the secure digital negative is sent to Private Cloud Compute:
PCC recomputes the digest embedded in the frame and verifies the
sensor's signature over the pixels and that digest, verifying the
certificate chain back to the sensor CA. PCC also verifies the SEP
signature and chains it to the BAA CA, and it verifies the signature
on the device manifest and chains it to the CA that signs device
manifests at the factory. It then confirms that the sensor and SEP
named in those chains belong to the same device. Only if all these
checks pass does processing continue.
Sure they can, they have everything needed to prove to Apple's servers that they're a real iPhone since pulling the keys means they have the cryptographic root of trust, and Apple's servers will happily be a signature oracle for them in that case.
> When Reference mode starts, the operating system supplies a SHA-256 digest to be embedded at a fixed location in the captured frame’s metadata. The digest is computed from the most recent secure timestamp, the device manifest, and the device's secure boot manifest.
And when you know what is measured into those manifests and the keys at the root of trust you can manufacture those too.
The entire scheme is dependent on not being able to extract device specific keys. At the end of the day, those are almost certainly efuses burnt based on a on-chip HRNG as a manufacturing step which is intended to never leave the device, but instead only signatures and associated public keys.
But when you have chip development hardware of the kind you'd have at a decent fabless semiconductor company, you can very clearly see burnt efuses.
[1]: "How pixels become an Apple Reference Image" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49735284
We already know it's happening right now, and they know we know, but we can't do shit about it.
I'm aware. The point is they can't give the NSA something they don't have. The photo sensor generates its own ECDSA P-256 signing key pair and never releases the private half.
Every device has a unique key pair and the private key is unavailable… there's not a way to give the NSA that would help them. The system is setup so that the image data, meta data, etc can't be accessed by anyone including Apple.
(Similar to how many PGP hardware keys allow generating a private key on-device or writing your own provided key.)
- verifies each link and its certificate chain, sensor signature over pixels, SEP signature, device manifest signature
- PCC Submits the commitment (the JPEG hash) to Apple's signing service.
So, at some point in time, Apple's servers have both the original certificate chain and the new replacement signature. If this is recorded, Apple can deanonimize photos and check whether two photos were from the same device/sensor.
Apple's system protects against most state actors, except Apple and the US, unless you fully trust that their PCC is watertight.
(Remember that Apple was part of PRISM and probably also its successor.)
I don't think law enforcement needs it, because when sending/posting a picture, people leak so much metadata anyway.
But people outside the US should certainly distrust these systems.
Again, that's not how it works.
There's no set of keys and certificates they could give to the NSA. Every iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max has a unique set of cryptographic keys, most of which can't be accessed by Apple.
The first thing that happens is when photo sensor is initialized at the factory, it creates its own ECDSA P-256 signing key pair; the private key is never disclosed. The public key is signed by the factory's certificate authority.
This ain't X.509 where VeriSign's key pair is sitting in a HSM at their HQ and in theory could be forced to sign a fraudulent certificate or revoke someone's valid website certificate.
Also, while the unique device ID is supposed to be burned into fuses by the SE during production, it is kinda hard to prove for anyone that is not Apple that this indeed happens in the way they state.
Personally I’m not a strong believer in such theories though. I think it’s more mundane and Apple helps law enforcement by having some weak defaults. Like how iMessage is end-to-end encrypted, but most chats are available to law enforcement because most people turn on iCloud Backups/Messages in iCloud and not ADP, resulting in chats only being encrypted at-rest in iCloud. This is only stated somewhere in a footnote in one of their security documents.
There are more weak defaults like that in various crucial apps (e.g. WhatsApp) that makes most important stuff available to law enforcement when needed.
I think you have a point. I would only note that just because it is not explicitly designed as one, does not mean it will not be effectively utilized in that manner.
> There's no way to link a reference image to a person; it's also not possible to determine if a pair of images came from the same device.
How would they do that ? There is only one signed key of the device
Related: It is also moving toward a world where the US effectively becomes the world judge of truth
An insurance would either assign #1 an insurance agent or mechanic to initially assess the damage (trusted) or #2 ask the customer to send pictures (untrusted).
Tendency is #2 for cost-saving of the insurance, and 3rd party apps are used to execute this.
Now the idea is that the insurance company discontinues the App and the (untrusted) customer must have an iPhone 18 Pro to make an insurance claim?
Or is the insurance agent / mechanic an untrusted entity who will now be required to have an iPhone 18 Pro?
What is the fraud vector here, and how can the insurance service provider continue cost-saving on damage-assessment by offloading to the customer, if the customer is required to own a specific device?
In a couple of years it will be almost any iPhone instead of 18 Pro. And if it catches on, other phone vendors will provide a similar service.
And then stop the 3rd party app which is vendor-agnostic and works on all devices?
I'd say that's unlikely.
IF that's an industry this Apple-feature will disrupt, it seems it will barely have an impact on the process of insurance companies themselves, but will actually disrupt the service-provider industry FOR insurances:
The insurance won't be able to stop their existing 3rd party cost-saving, as it provides the largest device-coverage for offloading to the customer.
Instead, either the insurance or the 3rd party service-provider will have to pay Apple in addition to make use of this feature, with the hopes that the provided data will reduce fraud.
Which brings me back to my actual question: What is the fraud-vector here?
The industry has some extensive experience in independently verifying signatures, I don't see how the manufacturers factor in here. And for app features, just ask banks how integrating biometrics, payment services, etc. goes. Tends to be preferred, once Apple and Google Pay became fully available here in Austria, banks dropped their own NFC payment solutions in rapid succession.
There would be no contract, you just upload image from your phone and they verify signature in the file
This will allow banks to trust these cameras more on the long run, allowing higher security ID checks.
Banks are offloading the trusted process of ID verification to an untrusted entity (end-user, merchant,...) and compensate for the loss of security by using a trusted service-provider (now Apple AND an iPhone 18 Pro).
This is already happening today in two scenarios:
1. lower-risk scenarios (remotely) with trusted 3rd party service-providers and very low Hardware-requirements ("use this app on your phone to take a picture/video") and
2. higher-risk scenarios (on-site) with trusted 3rd party service-providers ("use THIS expensive device to take a picture/video of the customer/citizen")
Apple now potentially disrupts the service-provider industry of #2 (higher-risk scenarios) by
#a grabbing a part of this hardware/service market that MAY allow the end-user to be in control of the device and
#b replacing the on-site hardware/service with an iPhone "in a box".
They can't disrupt #1 because their cost-saving can't mandate the end-user to buy a 1000+ USD device just for THEM to provide the contracted service. (They can add convenience if you have it, but they can't reject their service if you don't)
Which means they disrupt mainly #2: The industry providing trusted imaging solutions for higher-risk scenarios.
--> So it's the Watch Ultra game all over again.
On Watch Ultra they disrupted the diving-watch market by the sheer scale of selling their development to everyone buying a Watch Ultra, driving down the cost so much that they can undercut every diving-watch company on the market.
Now they use the sheer scale of iPhone 18 Pro sales to enter the trusted-imaging market-segment, undercutting every player there and take that market.
Back in the day Canon and Nikon tried this with embedded private keys on their cameras, and with Sandisk's WORM SD cards. Then, somebody extracted the keys and it was game over.
While my iPhone 17 can't match a full frame mirrorless camera, it can take pretty impressive photos, so they are already more than adequate in detail and clarity department. So making these images trusted is a huge win for them.
Without it, anyone with a stolen document can pass it. (I don't think there's a generally available database of stolen documents, so I suspect these usually remain valid until their regular date of epxiry.)
Before deepfakes were dime a dozen, I remember my bank starting a video-call with me and required me to show my ID to them via camera. This was after a multi-factor check that I passed.
Making any of these factors more trustworthy is a win in my perspective, so having a trusted sensor is always better even if you do multi-factor authentication.
Our ID cards have a private-public key pair inside them, and it allows us to sign things amongst other things. Renewing your ID card for any reason revokes the digital signature of the previous one, so scanning it via NFC probably enough to check whether it's revoked. Same with photo (since machine readable part contains serial and check digits and such).
The idea is indeed that instead or in addition to requiring an app, the insurance company would require the app to run on a phone that supports Reference Image to make sure the image wasn't tampered with. Not right now, when the phones are new, but in a while when 50% of Americans have a sufficiently new iPhone. The rest of the people gets told to either borrow one if they want to make a claim, or go through some other alternative process designed to be so annoying that most people give up.
Insurance companies can have a native app and require the device’s camera. Companies already have tools to combat a liveliness check. Even if you’re using a modified app that pulls from the photo album instead of the camera? A video recording with the appropriate liveness verification easily avoids that mess.
It's been possible to do a live video deepfake for a long time now, but as with all new tech, law and society are taking their sweet time to understand the risks; IMO this is the other side of the same coin as some infamous tech comments on consumer products: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 and https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rob_Malda
NVIDIA suggested AI fakes controlled with face tracking input as a compression technique just for reducing video call bandwidth requirements (to ~117 bytes per frame). They did that six years ago: https://www.dpreview.com/news/5756257699/nvidia-research-dev...
As we're now in an AI race, even NVIDIA's specific technique has flaws which all the current tools can detect, there's never any guarantee of this continuing to be the case.
That said, in the case of Apple, they're historically followers not leaders despite the public image they like to present about innovation, and I'd expect this method to be flawed from day one even if we weren't reading a corporate blog post written in a self-congratulatory tone I find almost as off-putting as when AI write.
AI deepfake or edit video doesn’t pass liveliness checks without all the c2pa or reference image song and pony show.
Insurance companies can monitor the light reflections from the flash that they control or monitor the accelerometer and compare the accelerometer values with the video that they receive.
They could also just update their app to stop accepting photos from the album.
All of this data can be spoofed if it's not somehow authenticated.
> They could also just update their app to stop accepting photos from the album.
Doesn't help at all if the spoofed data is arriving via spoofed hardware.
While its true Apple usually isn't the first in a product category--not the first mp3 player, not the first smartphone, not the first tablet) but once they get there, they're quite innovative.
When the iPhone 5s was released in 2013, it was the first smartphone with a 64-bit processor, which caught Qualcomm off guard. Even when Qualcomm released a 64-bit processor the following year, it kinda didn’t matter because Android was still 32-bit.
Why do you believe Android manufacturers and SOC makers like Qualcomm won’t be able to offer a similar solution?
1. a public/private key exchanged during device-production (production-cost),
2. the capability to reboot in a cryptographic mode (R&D / component cost) and
3. a cloud-service which then processes the raw data to create a JPG (operational cost)
comes at a premium. Why should this premium be applied on a 99 USD Smartphone?
Which is my whole puzzle on this vector: If the big benefit is for insurance/ID-verification, which apply cost-saving by offloading their process to the untrusted customer, how much they can offload this by requiring their customer to own a 1000+ USD smartphone to provide THEIR service...?
The most I can imagine is insurances offloading their work to OTHER companies, NOT trusting them and therefore requiring them to own a 1000+ USD Smartphone. But even then, why not use a third party app that also runs on a 3y old iPhone and a 99 USD Android device...?
Okay. In good faith, I'll go with you:
If COST is not a factor, why does the Galaxy A16 still have no OIS (Optical Image Stabilization)?
Unlike this trusted-imaging service, OIS would be a feature for increased user-experience which is highly-matured and exists in Smartphones since 2013.
The answer is COST: A camera-module with OIS is a more-expensive component than a module without it.
And that's ONLY the component-cost: A OIS-camera doesn't come with increased cost in device-production (it's just another component to place and assemble), no increased cost in R&D (the tech is very mature, all the SW is there) and no running costs (there are no cloud-services required to operate OIS)
Also, OIS is a major mechanical add on (a literal motor) and even 1500usd smartphones lack it on some of their sensors, mainly because while it can have an advantage on an ultrawide, that tends to be more limited. Incidentally, most 99usd phones have one (actually usable) sensor which thus tends to have a larger width to compensate. I hope, in good faith, you see the difference, to something like ARI.
AMOLED, etc. are also a bit more expensive then OIS, but we get those into a sub 100usd BOM easily somehow. More so for 5g, certain features just become expected/required.
Your logic would lead to OEMs making SOCs without things like TEE and other things which started in the high-end but quickly became required and essentially free to implement.
Not saying it is free now, but that the upcoming gen of chips from Sony, Samsung, etc. will have it build in for such a minimal BOM impact, this will be an expected, common place feature across all prices.
To have a more serious, honest and accurate comparison than OIS, why do most new smartphone at 99usd include some form of an NPU? Or the trusted modules for biometrics, etc.?
No, you can apply smartphone OIS-tech on any sensor, stabilization is achieved via the lens-array, not the sensor. The size of the module slightly increases but that's not a hindering factor. Cost/Benefit of OIS on ultra-wide lenses is not there, so it's usually not applied.
>Your logic would lead to OEMs making SOCs without things like TEE and other things which started in the highend but quickly became required for one and basically free to implement for two.
TEE became a mandatory requirement of the media industry for Smartphones in ~2010, as they announced plans to restrict media-playback on a device without measures to secure the DRM-keys. Google made it mandatory shortly after, because the entire ecosystem was built on media-consumption.
It didn't come for free to the players in the industry, it became a very expensive task to develop, support and maintain it, but that's another story.
Drawing a parallel here, I fail to see who should require cryptographic authentication of a taken image from end-user devices, to the point that no consumer devices without it will be built anymore.
>Not saying it is free now, but that the upcoming gen of chips from Sony, Samsung, etc. will have it build in for such a minimal BOM impact, this will be an expected, common place feature across all prices.
It will be supported in sensors for sure, but those will be premium-tier sensors, as a differentiation factor. Until today there was no premium sensor used in mass-tier devices.
Of course, again, if there is demand in the market or a regulation requiring it, it will create an incentive for the industry to follow, but I fail to see why either of this should happen in the coming years.
>To have a more serious, honest and accurate comparison than OIS, why can you not buy a single new smartphone at any price without some NPU?
I don't know why OIS is not a "serious, honest and accurate" comparison, can you elaborate?
As stated, it's a highly mature technology available for over a decade already, providing critical-mass observable end-user value, yet it didn't just naturally "trickle down" to every smartphone price-segment, simply because it comes with additional cost no matter which scale (and the Galaxy A1x tier has massive scale).
A NPU is just the evolution of a DSP, which exists in Smartphone SoC's for more than a decade now and is required for Audio and Image processing. DSP's used to run pre-calculated inference models for lens-correction, exposure, white-balance, etc., now these processes can run as models on an NPU.
---
You are trying to argue why that feature won't naturally become a commodity at basically no cost. I'm trying to answer why I don't see this happen, because I worked in this industry for more than 20 years.
The market doesn't get features as a default "easily somehow", features reach this commodity stage because of significant end-user demand (like Camera, Display, Battery), business-value (for the vendor, like Apple Pay) or industry-requirements (like TEE, Widevine example above).
I don't see this happen for this feature, because there is
1. no significant end-user value (unless the public narrative is massively skewed towards "everything is true when the image was signed"),
2. the business-value applies only for Apple's service-proposition for now (which will likely make this feature expand to the non-Pro iPhone tier), and for
3. the industry-requirement I don't see WHO would actually be able to enforce this, for WHICH actual benefit.
And despite that experience, you do not see the universal value in reliable, verifiable image attestation for any user? You cannot imagine why that may not just be very useful, but quickly become required, what the "end-user demand", "business-value" or "industry-requirements" could be?
There is universal value in many features, yet they didn't become a commodity in all smartphone-tiers.
I don't see how and why this feature should become a default in all smartphones, which you keep insisting on without apparently comprehending the industry and market aspects I am trying to explain.
Peace.
How is what I wrote (that you seem to not see universal benefit) in bad-faith/not what you wrote (honestly trying to understand what you mean) if you then add:
> I don't see how and why this feature should become a default in all smartphones [...]
So, do you see universal value or not? Cause you again said you do not and that was precisely what I wrote, that you do not seem to despite it being obvious to anyone who thinks about why phones of any price have cameras.
Should I honestly start writing a list why private as well as business users of smartphones may want, even need this? Is that really required? Consider every use case of a camera on a phone, please, before I feel the need to do that.
You stated that you "struggle to see how cost could be a factor here", so in good faith I was trying to give you an insight.
There is universal value in OIS, as everyone takes pictures while holding the device in his hands, yet OIS is not applied universally in all price-tiers of devices. The reason is COST.
So you wanted to shift the conversation, claiming that it's not a "serious, honest and accurate" comparison, without providing any reasons for that.
Again, I walk with you, I respond to what you're stating.
Now it ends with you starting the straw-man argument of how obviously great this feature is and asking how despite all experience I am not capable to see that.
See, it doesn't matter if _I_ see universal value in this feature or not, the topic was why I consider it unlikely to become a commodity.
You tried to move the conversation to this straw-man argument, and doing so in bad-faith. That's why our talk ends here. I give you my side of this conversation so you may read and grow from it, but this is entirely up to you.
P.S.: You also seem to misunderstand what this feature is. It's NOT picture attestation as you put it.
Picture attestation means an entity confirms the connection of a picture to something else (some "metadata"), e.g. a picture of a person to an identity (Name, ID,...) or a place. This attestation party can either be a person (self-attested) or an official entity (e.g. a government).
Nothing in this process changes with this Apple feature, because all it can do is confirm that the picture was taken by the camera as-is, but the attestation to the external metadata (WHO this is, WHAT this is, WHERE this is) still needs to be done by someone else. A party trusted enough to vouch for this.
But let's end this here. Have a good day.
The reason is digital stabilization is a good enough alternative to not bother, and the lens/sensor modules they use in bulk just didn't come with "analog" stabilization. And OIS is way less important than a future digitally verified photos feature could be (which could be mandated by corporations, banks, governments, insurance companies, for several uses when it becomes widespread), so they didn't bother to add it.
All kinds of cheapo smartphones still manage to have OIS, just because some Samsung models don't doesn't mean it's a universal argument for cheap phones in general.
>Nothing in this process changes with this Apple feature, because all it can do is confirm that the picture was taken by the camera as-is, but the attestation to the external metadata (WHO this is, WHAT this is, WHERE this is) still needs to be done by someone else. A party trusted enough to vouch for this.
Moot point, since the entity (e.g. gov) asking for an untampered photo (which this can do), can combine the photo with the metadata from the upload, like your gov mobile app account.
> You tried to move the conversation to this straw-man argument, and doing so in bad-faith [...]
What? This entire conversation started with the assumption being made that this was going to be iPhone exclusive. I stated doubt and then you (re-read to verify cause you seem to have forgotten that) out of left field and for no discernible reason felt the need to move the conversation to the only massive straw man in this interaction, the 99usd phone market.
I personally still believe that this is going to be a universal feature soon enough (wait to hear from Omnivision, etc.) and stand by that. This is my personal assessment due to the objective need for such features in the world we live in today. I may be wrong on this, we will see. Maybe it will be restricted to the higher end Android phones, but that would still be compatible with what I started out saying.
I shouldn't have engaged with someone so serious that they must drag "why couldn't Android OEMs in general do the same" (a purely technical question) down to "99 USD Smartphone" and "premium" on those (an odd and empty pivot). Anyone who does such a shift, well, they must have a well founded, serious point to make.
But the assumption that smartphone cameras, including those used in 99USD smartphones, will become 100% cryptographic cameras in a few years is highly unlikely, considering that those cameras didn't even gain OIS in the last 13 years despite the feature being highly matured and widely available.
Changing the topic to other features won't change that.
You seem to lack the understanding how this industry works, and assume that every development naturally just trickles down and becomes a commodity. This is not the case.
This cryptographic feature will definitely become available from camera sensor suppliers, first of all likely from Sony. But it will be a feature of premium sensors and will remain a differentiation factor.
Sony will not support cryptography to its sensors without additional cost. Device-vendors integrating those sensors then have additional cost in R&D, production AND operations. All this will not be waived and put in a 99USD device.
For the other assumption, that "If this type of thing becomes required", I fail to see how this should happen for a mass-market consumer: This feature doesn't authenticate the content of an image, it just authenticates the RAW data of the image sensor. It won't (and shouldn't!) make the user more trusted towards another entity (like Apple mentions themselves in the link)
Them becoming 70% cryptographic is enough. The people who need the feature, can get a compatible model. Nobody argued that smartphones sold for kids to game on for example should have it.
Because it's just not that important, phones and cameras have also used digital stabilization via cropping since forever.
1. OIS (optical stabilization) ensures that the light photons consistently hit the same pixel, removing the blur caused by camera-shake during exposure.
2. EIS (electrical stabilization) via cropping compensates camera-shake on video(!) recording by applying the same shake to the crop-canvas within the frame.
--> EIS can fix a shaky video but not a blurry photo.
It's video where people care about these days. Does anybody complain about blurry S12 photos?
--> OIS actually became MORE important for Smartphones in the past years, because while post-processing produces better and better results, it massively depends on usable input data. OIS is one of the very few methods to improve the INPUT-quality for post-processing.
>"There have been several expensive cameras with no OIS, like Ricoh GR and (and v2), or ZVE10 (and v2)."
That's a apples and oranges comparison. A quick Google search tells me the size of a pixel on the Ricoh GR sensor is 4.81 µm, which is ~8 times larger than the pixel in recent smartphones (~0,6µm). It is not only physically capable to capture 8x more light, it is also much less affected by minor shaking than sensors with smaller pixel-sizes.
>"Does anybody complain about blurry S12 photos?"
Not sure what's a "S12", but:
- On flagship phones with OIS: Not so much. Maybe in low-light scenarios, because, you know, not much light...
- On cheaper devices without OIS: Yes! Oh yes, constantly.
People assume that the picture-quality of a e.g. 2026 Galaxy A16 must be comparable or better than the picture of a 8-year old Galaxy S9. It's not, the S9 is still better in everyday shooting.
Just check user-reviews of mass-tier smartphones without OIS, like Samsung Galaxy A series...
Sure, the same could happen here, but I don't know which industry (or other body) would demand that and have sufficient justification for it.
After all, the feature doesn't really change that much for a consumer, the trust-chain is largely unchanged: If I send you a picture and tell you that's my dog, you still have to take my word for it, regardless whether Apple signed the picture or not.
You wanna buy it now or not? /s
It's entirely software. It's R&D cost, with basically none of it in hardware (you technically just need the private key store which even very cheap devices have)
The timestamping server is the hard part, especially with the verified compute component. It's just not something I see Samsung doing.
I expect Google to show up with a blog post titled "extending C2PA with timestamps for industry-leading authenticity confirmation" any time.
The UK allows private prosecution, if it was a real problem the insurance companies would be using it, instead of attempting to make the state pay for it.
This tech would just indicate that they got authentic pixels capturing a potentially fake license.
Likewise, this doesn't help as much as you'd like with most bespoke remote selfie verification systems, since this doesn't support video, doesn't protect against MITM and adds a remote processing delay that breaks any time-of-flight measurement. It shuffles the risks around.
I don't follow. It's my user agent that's verifying the image, and my device will tell me that it's not verified.
This is definitely not an Apple thing, though the use profile is more ubiquitous. Canon had, more than twenty years ago, when they first started making DSLRs, the question of "If we want law enforcement to use these, how do we handle the inevitable questions?" and as a result built out the option to digitally sign the raw sensor data in-camera so the raw file could be pointed to in court with an attestation of image integrity.
True.
> raises the bar but could be bypassed with enough effort.
Anyone can spoof this.
Apple cannot stop spam iMessages. They can't stop someone from rendering their privileged UI inside a browser viewport. People copy and paste remote script executions from convincing captchas.
This whole provenance thing is a red herring. You agree with me, but there's truly not a single application for this that won't be exploited.
Photoshop / AI-gen an image -> display on a high-resolution monitor -> photograph the monitor with iPhone 18 Pro -> valid Apple Reference image.
To get valid reference photos, you can go to the actual physical location, put the iPhone/monitor in a cardboard box to block external light, then photograph the monitor. Paint the inside of the box using Vantablack (stopping reflections) and cover the LiDAR projector with tape.
I can't wait to see Apple Verified™ photos of UFOs flying over the Golden Gate Bridge.
https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa...
The Apple Reference Image feature is here launched on iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max that both have built-in LiDAR sensors that could be used for this process.
A better fix is to take photos with all three iPhone cameras simultaneously, ideally as a 2-3s video, and use the parallax/multiple perspectives to extract depth information. The video files (Possibly audio too) could also be included with the verified image as additional verification.
They can also prevent photos if iPhone detects the LiDAR sensor is covered, similar to how Meta does it with their camera glasses.
I've never looked at the LiDAR hardware, but where is the emitter in relation to the receiver. Why would the LiDAR not reflect off of whatever you're blocking it with and return a very short flight meaning it was very close?
I think iPhones already do this (although without taking multiple seconds of video). iOS is capable of generating pretty accurate depth data even on devices with no LiDAR unit.
Similarly, LiDAR alone will help disqualify cases where someone is just taking a picture of e.g. a landscape target of the Golden Gate, but that it shown on a screen 1 meter away.
I think optics could be used to make each camera see a different image.
A video could show shake, which could be verified against readings from the phone's accelerometer -- but you could just hold it still and claim that it was on a tripod.
TL;DR: What is C2PA in 60 seconds
What: An open technical standard for embedding cryptographically signed provenance data inside digital media files.
Who: Created by a coalition founded by Adobe, Arm, BBC, Intel, Microsoft, and Truepic in February 2021.
How: A C2PA Manifest (also called a Content Credential) travels inside the file and records who made it, when, and what tools were used.
Why: Deepfake incidents surged from 500,000 to 8 million cases between 2023 and 2025. Provenance gives media a verifiable chain of custody.
> increasing the difficulty of producing a forgery
The problem with this thinking is twofold:
1) Whether it actually meaningfully increases the difficulty of a forgery remains to be seen. Despite their initial language about discerning real events, we see no details here about what scene information is used.
2) It increases the potential value of a forgery because now your forgery is attested by Apple.
So it either makes it easier to defraud people or more worthwhile to put in the effort to defraud people or both. None of those outcomes are great.
[1] https://commonlands.com/products/ir-cut-filters-csp650?srslt...
But I really mean that if the lidar barely works outdoors anyway then actually you don't need to be 16 feet away at all.
Anyway, one may presume that they've thought about this.
It’s almost certainly possible to fool v1 of this system, for some images, in some contexts. It would be shocking if the first implementation was completely perfect. But maybe it’s better than nothing?
I think this will depend on how it gets used. I can imagine numerous outcomes where it's in fact worse than nothing (significantly more effective blackmail, for instance).
The problem is that it makes it easier to fool people and provide "cryptographic" evidence of validity, backed by big tech.
It's purpose is to stop bad actors from passing of fake as real just as much as it is to prevent real images being dismissed as fake.
Knowing Apple, they've been working on and testing Apple Reference Image for years.
It being perfect isn't the issue; it's that random people on the internet who are just learning about this assume Apple's engineers haven't already thought about everything (and more) mentioned in this thread.
Given how many bugs there are in macOS and how long they have remained there, I (who have been writing iOS apps from the release of the first retina iPod touch until AI got good) functionally agree with such people; at best, I think Apple's engineers haven't actually solved everything (and more) mentioned in this thread, even if every one of these things may have come up in discussions and even reached an official backlog or task list or similar.
While that is not quite my bar of confidence when implementing wide-reaching technologies that have numerous unexplored knock-on effects, I guess the calculus must have been different on Infinite Loop recently.
I’ve seen that type of argument a million times, and I’ll certainly reuse that.
seems pretty easy to make it sufficiently difficult to trick the system
> Today, powerful, widely available AI tools allow users to easily generate or alter photorealistic images to a degree that was difficult to imagine just a few years ago.
Photoshop has existed for decades and so has fake images. This is a low friction way to attest "this image came from an iPhone sensor and Apple approved it". It will still take the usual image forensics to determine if the scene it depicts is legitimate.
It is the problem that they say they're trying to solve, though. They specifically say "where the essential role of a photograph is to prove that something actually happened".
It fails the reasonable person test to say that the "something" in that phrase refers to the act of taking the photo itself.
Likewise in "distinguish between photographs that depict real events and...".
After all, if money is no object, you could just bribe every single apple employee involved in the project.
The problem with this thinking is twofold:
1) Whether it actually meaningfully increases the difficulty of a forgery remains to be seen. Despite their initial language about discerning real events, we see no details here about what scene information is used.
2) It increases the potential value of a forgery because now your forgery is attested by Apple.
So it either makes it easier to defraud people or more worthwhile to put in the effort to defraud people or both. None of those outcomes are great.
Therefore because of your worry (which is based on remarkably little information), it's a bad technology?
Come the fuck on. That's beyond luddite bullshit.
You must be new around here. ;-)
Then maybe let’s save those criticisms until this is in the hands of knowledgeable people who can actually test? I mean, I’m no fan of the direction Apple has gone under Tim Cook, but all else being equal I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that they may have thought this through over the time it took to build more than a random person speculating on HN who just read a blog post for the first time.
> (…) we see no details here about what scene information is used.
And you assume that everything in a post is the sum total of how it works?
> It increases the potential value of a forgery
By that token, should we also not be adding forgery deterrents to ID cards and bills? After all, if you can fake the preventive measures, “it increases the potential value of a forgery”.
Which surely will be useful in ID verification on the Internet; Android devices most likely will follow with same or similar solution
Also the dots can be trivially blocked by putting your finger over the sensor, sometimes improving photo quality. I do this frequently when I want to take a photo through a window. The absence of the dot matrix tells the iPhone to focus on the background far away instead of the windowpane.
I feel really dumb for not having thought of this.
While I'm on board with you about the inabsolute security of this (relative to what's typically expected of cryptographic systems), the fact that their 'verified' state requires a live certification and can be revoked means that the sensor responsible for obviously faked images will see those images and that device no longer certified.
It all relies a lot on trust in Apple, and integration with Apple, and relatively unmotivated attackers.
I think the idea is to control the easy, cheap mass production of AI gen picture and not 100% coverage.
That’s a tradeoff I can live with.
You will find pre made kits to do that exact thing in a few weeks/months on alibaba and similar
However much effort is required to fake it - it's proof that the image is either legit or that much effort went in. There's TONS of cases where it's plausible for someone to have put in the effort to fake a photo with AI (nearly zero effort required) but not remotely plausible that they set up some elaborate high quality photo of a fake.
It's also much more damning if you get caught faking it. Think of the examples where police have been caught posting altered images on social media. The lame excuse that some intern didn't realize it would do more than just upscale the image won't fly if some elaborate setup was required.
https://www.elcomsoft.com/news/428.html
https://blog.elcomsoft.com/2011/04/nikon-image-authenticatio...
You don't even have to travel to the location, you can just spoof GPS. And of course that will only be needed until some eastern european kid gets bored one weekend and the signing keys magically appear on pastebin.
It's funny to see Apple fall into this same trap.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's also possible to detect the differences between a photo of a real scene and a photo of a monitor or printout displaying a photo of a real scene, given they have the raw sensor output.
Not sure if they're doing anything like that.
But you're only allowed to do that if your name if Anish Kapoor
Once a defeat device (a camera pointed at a screen) is functional, whoever has it, can simply automate a "receive API request, display image on screen, photograph it, return signed image" pipeline. A cheap internet service. I'd WAG a hundred thousand signatures per day per phone, limited by the sensor speed.
Since there's no way for anyone, Apple included, to correlate photo signatures with the device that signed them, it's also true there's no way to stop one device from signing millions in bulk. ("...an outside observer cannot determine whether any pair of reference images were taken by the same device..."; "...avoid even implicit public association between different photos taken by the same sensor...")
It's the same economic asymmetry as DRM vs. movie piracy (as soon as one group defeats a technical challenge, millions instantly benefit, at zero marginal cost). Apple has no chance of winning.
There’s no such thing as a Golden Gate Bridge.
Prove it.
So if you're the proud owner of "literally the only photo of a ridiculously unusual event in a highly public area" which is bounded to either a plausible 15-30 minute window or a sketchy March2026->Now window, people can do something like "hey, gee, did anyone else see that UFO over the golden gate bridge at 3pm?"
plus, you know, the confidence score from their secret neural network, which has an unknown scoring function.
Discerning a camera taken image of an image is typically very very easy. The collors/exposure/etc will all be obviously wrong in ways to a human, even without doing any analysis.
I think the "reference image" means a photo is taking by a real iPhone 18 device at a certain time, what the content actually means is another matter.
The "digital negative" in DNG format can be used to analyze the authenticity of the content.
I hope that companies and governments don't start forcing us to use this stuff by requiring it for their services.
I don't think we should have this, for that reason alone (but many others too).
Like with the Watch Ultra (attacking the diving-watch market with the sheer volume-scale of selling the development to everyone buying a Watch Ultra), Apple is attacking the trusted-imaging market with the same strategy.
Okay, fine. Will work for sure, this will disrupt the trusted-imaging market and moreover make Apple a service-provider in this industry (with the ramp-up cost paid by customers buying iPhones for entirely different purposes).
But creating this impression and media-buzz that Apple is now verifying more than just the digital authenticity of an image may shift the public scrutiny of MANY media/online statements:
There is a risk that random claims (and propaganda) will be given more credibility in the public eye just because they came with images that were confirmed to be "taken like this on an iPhone"
No, because images will be confirmed to have been taken on "this iPhone". The New York Times will be able to publish an article and to attest that the photographs shown were taken by their journalists, and then your user agent will verify that provenience.
Actually the description of Apple makes explicit statements AGAINST that:
Quote: Privacy preservation: an outside observer cannot determine whether any pair of reference images were taken by the same device
An inside observer can tho, and if they know or have it, cant they be subpoenaed and forced to disclose the identity?
This sounds pretty bad for journalists/sources. Why is this needed now of all times?
Like with C2PA, the entire thing hinges on nobody being able to dump keys or trick the TPM into signing arbitrary image data. The timestamping server is a nice idea (though I don't see why they can't just use a normal timestamping server, I guess to keep control over the protocol) but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem that defeated C2PA.
If there is too much of a gap between the upper and lower bounds then the image becomes suspicious.
This approach does have one benefit, which is that Apple gets all the (meta)data to determine if something is or isn't "real", rather than letting the verifier decide beforehand.
I can only imagine the outrage if Google or Microsoft added a "upload all of your photos to us and we will mark them are real or fake" protocol, even with all of the verified compute gaff.
Is the whole point here that Apple have baked the TPM and keys directly into the sensor. So extracting the keys or injecting arbitrary data, will likely involve the destructive delidding of the image sensor itself.
That’s a significantly higher bar you need to jump, than any approach where the sensor and TPM are separate modules with no cryptographic capabilities in the sensor itself.
From the article > The creation of a secure digital negative begins with a secure boot of the camera sensor into a specialized reference capture mode. The mode instructs the sensor to cryptographically sign pixel data immediately after capture, and prevents the sensor firmware from modifying the data.
It’s simply not technically possible to verify the authenticity of the camera input with 100% certainty. Pretending that it is possible only creates problems. Then someone fakes evidence, but all the normies who have no clue about technology assume that it must be real. You see this with AI detectors too they recognize random texts as generated, yet an unbelievable number of people believe them.
Apple/iOS already have part authentication pipeline on its security sensitive devices (TouchID/FaceID). How can camera sensor can't be considered one of those and needs attestation before enabling?
From the document:
> Apple Reference Image leverages custom-designed image sensors in iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max to ensure reliable capture of image data, and relies on Private Cloud Compute, which provides a computational environment for secure photographic processing that cannot be subverted even in the case of device compromise. (emphasis mine)
I don’t think there any many people out there with the right equipment to carefully ablate the top of a sensor off, so they can directly inject their own data into the start of signing process. It’s not impossible, but it’s also not the kind of thing most people and organisations are going to be capable of doing.
> The creation of a secure digital negative begins with a secure boot of the camera sensor into a specialized reference capture mode. The mode instructs the sensor to cryptographically sign pixel data immediately after capture, and prevents the sensor firmware from modifying the data.
I believe many of the problems we have, need social and human solutions, especially when the technical solutions are hard or impossible.
Like here, where we can no longer trust images to depict reality and act as proof. While its admirable that people look for technical solutions, the obvious social solution is to admit that images are no longer absolute proof and will become less and less trustworthy¹.
And, by admitting that, change our relation to these artifacts. Sure, that will change journalism, police work, legal systems, etc etc.
But pretending that we can rely on images might allow journalists, police, judges to continue relying on them as if they're authentic, which is a far bigger problem over a longer period.
Social solutions require effort, demand flexibility, take time and are messy. But this is what humans are and do. Not everything has a technical solution. Not every technical solution is the best option.
¹ we already saw this when people claimed "someone must have hacked my iphone and put it there". For decades we've seen this with images that are deliberately taken in a way to spin a story (like the illusion of a large crowd or spacious room through carefull angles or fancy lenses). And I predict we will see this with security footage, "live streams" or even bodycams with "ai enhancement". Just imagine a bodycam or a dashcam that manipulates the output to benefit the owner. "A dashcam that will prove your innocence in assumed traffic violations" or such.
Location services is quite hard to trick. To the point people have gone to the lengths of putting iPhones inside a microwave for RF shielding and setting up fake phone tower signals inside to trick the phone in to unlocking the hearing aid feature on AirPods for unapproved countries.
So if you jailbreak or root your phone what happens? Is this a trojan horse into making rooted phone cameras unverified? Just like how Linux machines can't watch Netflix in 4K
Plenty of certification bodies refuse to revoke their given certifications because of brand damage or effects on their customers. That's why cryptographic verification of things like Secure Boot are basically broken on most systems by default.
If an independent security researcher does it and Apple rolls out fixes a month later, I can see it happening. If it turns out a government agency hacked the platform "at some point", I have my doubts Apple will retroactively reject all of their iPhones' signatures.
And, yeah, I'm incredibly tired of this whole concept of a device you own acting in someone else's interests. This needs to stop and it needs to happen 10 years ago.