• topherclay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    So whatever way the camera output is being signed, what’s stopping you from signing an altered video with a similar private key and then saying “you can all trust that my video is real because I have the private key for it.”

    The doubters will have to concede that the video did indeed come from you because it pairs with your key, but why would anyone trust that the key came from the camera step instead of coming from the editing step?

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      You can enter the camera as evidence, and prove that it has been used for other footage. Each camera should have a unique key to be effective.

      So if you create a new key, it won’t match the one on am existing camera. If you steal the key, then once that’s discovered, the camera should generate a new one.

    • Rossphorus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You, the end user, don’t have access to your camera’s private key. Only the camera IC does. When your phone / SD card first receives the image/video it’s already been signed by the hardware.

        • Rossphorus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s pretty standard practise these days to have some form of secure enclave on an SoC - Arm’s TrustZone, Intel’s SGX, AMD’s SME/SEV. This wouldn’t be any different. Many camera ICs are already using an Arm CPU internally already.