-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 131
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[fix/bypass-lock-prevention] Bypass Passcode Prevention #1324
Closed
Closed
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a3f1c16
Prevent the user from changing the device time to bypass the lock pre…
hosy 5bf4d2a
changed privacy reason and removed unneeded key/value pairs
hosy 4e37782
maybe keys are needed
hosy 853e803
fixed code review findings
hosy b21c0b6
Converted lockUntilDate to lockDelay. This is a better prevention if …
hosy 5840f4d
converted code to significant time change notification
hosy File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
By handling every initialization of the
AppLockManager
as a significant time change and resetting the countdown, users may be hit without trying to bypass the lock timer, f.ex. during regular usage like:Adding
UIApplication.significantTimeChangeNotification
as a signal to the mix of detecting a bypass attempt is a good idea, but if the notification is not delivered to the app and/or app extensions when they aren't running at the time the significant time change occurs, it can't be relied on alone.Resetting the timer every time the
AppLockManager
is initialized in a new process closes the gaps that aUIApplication.significantTimeChangeNotification
can leave, but also has negative effects on legitimate usage, unfortunately, which I think we should avoid.Why not use
ProcessInfo.processInfo.systemUptime
as outlined above?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@felix-schwarz please go ahead if by implementing the prevention using
ProcessInfo.processInfo.systemUptime
if you think it is a better solution.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, I implemented a solution based on
ProcessInfo.processInfo.systemUptime
at #1347 . If it passes testing on a real device, I'd suggest to close this PR and proceed with #1347 instead.