>As we know, the devices are not attested, because beeper works.
This argument doesn't make any sense.
They managed to figure out a way to create valid attestation data via old Apple binaries. Just because a security (well. "security") measure was circumvented, doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.
From the way I see it described here, it's more in-depth hardware attestation on newer models. So they're doing the good security thing here, but also not making millions of users' lives worse by outright blocking old phones that don't have the necessary hardware features to perform this attestation. x (5? 15?) years in the future they'll block super old stuff that doesn't meet these security requirements.
That's not how it works. Beeper uses the old binaries, because those come from older iPhones where the hardware signing was not possible yet. It's not circumventing anything as far as I understand, just connecting the way an older iPhone would connect.
I mean, we're splitting hairs on terminology here I feel like?
Apple does not want you to connect to iMessage with non-Apple hardware and Beeper uses old Apple binaries to let you do just that.
That, to me, does fall under the umbrella term of "circumventing" some measures that Apple put in place to stop you from doing that; but I guess I can see the point where you'd object to use of that word?
That's a different argument. I was responding to you saying "This argument doesn't make any sense." to the attestation not being required. Whether you call that circumvention or not, ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯
The point was that if you can replicate it in software, then they're not requiring hardware attestation.
This argument doesn't make any sense.
They managed to figure out a way to create valid attestation data via old Apple binaries. Just because a security (well. "security") measure was circumvented, doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.