Parsing arbitrary attacker provided data on the other hand is hard. I would guess the there’s an incorrect assumption that Bluetooth (and similar) radios are legitimate fcc approved hardware that isn’t actively malicious. I would suspect that if people put any thought into it they could do similar to any other Bluetooth device.
As the article notes, there is a simple way to stop this attack, which is to disable bluetooth. I already do that by default.
You are more concerned with someone opening your iPhone and putting a replacement malicious part than with someone pwning your iPhone with a $5 wireless device while in his car just driving by ?
Your threat model is upside down.
> there is a simple way to stop this attack, which is to disable bluetooth
This doesn't work, I've already tried it with my iPhone and a friend's Flipper.
I feel like you’re giving it an unfair shake. They didn’t just _build a toy_ those of us who originally supported through kickstarter saw a huge chunk of the work that went into building this device, the flipper team (10ish people?) has and continues to overcome so many crazy things (Covid, chips, supply chains, shipping) just to have the flipper device available world wide. The dev/modding community behind it is pretty amazing.
Full disclosure I was a very early backer. I have used my Flipper for fun and business. I can’t think of any other $120 _toy_ I use as much. Maybe I’m biased, and took your comment out of context.
It comes with a tamagotchi in the stock firmware so it's hard not seeing it as a device for fun and whimsy aka a toy.
In calling it a toy, I'm saying it's a B2C product, neatly packaged up with few sharp edges. It has an easy to use app. I don't have to dig deep into some cross-compiler setup to build firmware for it. Professional HW dev should be so easy!
My underlying point was that the Wired article and subsequent press has launched the product far further than originally thought.
Why does the word toy connotate so negatively for you?
