There's also the issue that the device is covered in fingerprints, and if you can build a clean image of the print, you can likely manufacture a gelatin copy of that fingerprint that will work on most fingerprint scanners.
I can't speak to the current generation of Apple fingerprint scanners, but historically iirc you can grab a print, clean it up in Photoshop, print it on OHP transparency using a laser printer and use it like a mould to copy a fingerprint.
The process uses the depth of the toner layer to make a mould of the physical ridges, which you use to generate a a gelatine cast of them. It's like a single-layer depth 3D print where the medium is fused toner from the laser printer.
Before the plague shut down the place I got my larger bottle refilled, I got a mid-size standard CO2 to SodaStream adapter from Ali Express. Saved me a fortune hooked up direct to the SodaStream, especially as sparkling water was intermittently surprisingly difficult to get hold of during those times. I should contact the gas supplier, see where the nearest point is now.
Given the impact of international terrorism and crime on India, minimising illicit money flow in and out of the country seems an inherently sensible precaution.
Hunterbrook exposed that the distribution network for an American company, Ubiquti (allegedly), knowingly supplied Russia after the start of the Ukrainian war. Doing so in clear breach of sanctions.
US gear being used to facilitate attacks on Ukrainian civilians and military.
To say "Ubiquiti could likely do more..." is a massive understatement.
Is it not more "VST author just does the bare minimum to keep honest people honest, because more invasive DRM risks ruining a live performance"? I'm not understanding why TFA author has such an attitude about this. Is the VST author a horrible person or running a toxic business model or something?
> I'm not understanding why TFA author has such an attitude about this
To me it reads like an ego trip rather than any kind of righteous vendetta against the author. Implicit in "look at the dumb thing this other person did" is "I'm smarter than them because I noticed the dumb thing".
I think the VST author and the DRM vendor are different people and the author is poking fun at the latter. It’s possible that the VST author isn’t aware that the fancy DRM protection they paid for doesn’t cover runtime.
I think the VST author knew that fine, but they figured that:
1) Protecting the installer will take care of most casual piracy
2) Protecting the VST might lead to unpredictable performance and issues on something that needs to run in real-time
So they chose to only protect the installer, which seems like a very user-friendly choice. I both enjoyed the writeup and want to second supporting the developer by buying a license.
That’s also possible, and even if that were the case I don’t see how this article is even tangentially saying that the VST author is a bad person or toxic or whatever the comment I was responding to mentioned.
It’s kind of a rote “this is a bad implementation” post that’s pretty obviously about the DRM vendor and not the guy that made a bass boost plugin for djs or whatever it is.
And furthermore, if a product designed to protect my income was only $200, I wouldn’t expect “serious security”, I’d expect exactly
The kind of janky crap that was received.
I can't speak to the current generation of Apple fingerprint scanners, but historically iirc you can grab a print, clean it up in Photoshop, print it on OHP transparency using a laser printer and use it like a mould to copy a fingerprint.
reply