MacInTouch Amazon link...

Apple security and privacy

Channels
Apple, Security
And make sure you get the upper-case/lower-case correct, and watch out, because this can be hijacked by Apple's automatic, default "features" (e.g. auto-capitalization).
The strings entered by, or copied from, 1Password are ignored by Apple's ["auto-correction"] assistants, which seem to alter keyboard input only, including keystrokes from Keyboard Maestro.

Other data can be saved [by 1Password] with the password and other credentials, including questions and answers (which can be copied and pasted as needed). Backup of 1Password works internally and also works with Time Machine, Carbon Copy Cloner, etc. Multiple backups can occur if 1Password vaults are on more than one device.

(I don't get paid for these comments. They derive from half a decade of use of 1Password.)
 


Just a follow-up that my friend’s former wife was willing and able to help us reset his Apple ID after several false starts.

Apple’s system today is very reminiscent of what we used to make fun of Microsoft back in the day. It’s broken and confusing and definitely doesn’t “just work.” My friend would have never figured it out on his own, and I had a hard enough time as it was... 2FA is now on, so hopefully things will be easier to manage in the future.
 


Apple’s system today is very reminiscent of what we used to make fun of Microsoft back in the day. It’s broken and confusing and definitely doesn’t “just work.” My friend would have never figured it out on his own, and I had a hard enough time as it was...
Your friend didn't have the account password, didn't know the security information, and didn't have access to the devices that could reset the account, and so was unable to access the account. Just like a potential hacker. It sounds like the system worked as intended (and necessary).
 


Your friend didn't have the account password, didn't know the security information, and didn't have access to the devices that could reset the account, and so was unable to access the account. Just like a potential hacker. It sounds like the system worked as intended (and necessary).
The thing is that we were indeed able to get Apple Support to reset the password after verifying he was the owner and waiting 24 hours. And he did know the security question answers required to change his recovery email, just could not remember capitalization and abbreviation. Apple’s system gives no initial clue that your answers were rejected, which resulted in the first lockout period. There were simply too many possible combinations to try and we kept getting locked out for eight hours at a time. Had his ex not been willing to help, he would have lost the account completely.

I’m highly in favor of tightly protecting access to be able to reset the account, but for a legitimate owner of the account (who is barely tech literate), the reset process is essentially broken.
 



Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Apple posted an AirPort security update yesterday but didn't specify the procedure for applying the fix.

No problem, I'll use Apple's AirPort Utility on my up-to-date iPhone.

Nope, AirPort Utility says that the AirPort is already at its latest firmware version... except, no, it's obviously not. And this 802.11ac AirPort model is clearly eligible/vulnerable, according to Apple's notice.

I tried again later. Same thing.

Finally, I tried AirPort Utility (v. 6.3.7) from macOS 10.12.6, and it recognized that the security update firmware needed to be applied then, finally, performed that task.

#applesecurity #applequality
 



Ah, that would be the Airport Extreme 6th Generation. I have the 5th Generation, and it's running v7.6.9 and hasn't had any updates in a long time.
Similar situation here, David. I have another tidbit to add, in regards to the older, pre-Wi-Fi 5 models. I run AirPort Utility 5.6.1 in Windows 10, the latest version available for Windows, where there is a menu item to initiate a "Check for Updates...". When I do so, now I get an error message saying "There was an error connecting to the update server."

This is a fairly recent issue, though there is no telling if it is the old software running on Windows 10 or Apple shut down a server. (I only have the latest versions of the AirPort Utility on my Macs, so no testing the old Mac version here.)
 



I received the following error when I tried to update the firmware on my AirPort Extreme 802.11ac:
An error occurred while updating the firmware. -16
Can anyone tell me what "error -16" means?

It seemed like the firmware updated successfully, and the error only occurred after the updater forced the AirPort to restart. My AirPort seem to be functioning, and it now has 7.9.1, but the error makes me wonder if everything is ok.
 


I received the following error when I tried to update the firmware on my AirPort Extreme 802.11ac
I've seen several reports of different error numbers, and observed it myself, but we appear to have been ultimately successful with the update and have moved on to other things.
 


Wired said:
Apple Just Patched a Modem Bug That's Been in Macs Since 1999
Remote Access as it was conceived then is long gone from macOS. But Hill always remembered his first hack, and in 2017, while studying macOS and iOS's VPN protocols in his research for Guardian, he discovered an ancient bug that could replicate something similar. Devices like smartphones have a built-in modem to send and receive data between computers (mainly across the internet), and they aren't generally programmed to be compatible with other modems. But PCs are designed to be more customizable, and, especially in the early days of the internet, it was important that they be able to interoperate with modems from all different manufacturers that might essentially speak different languages. Hill found that these old modem configurations still underlie the network tools in Macs today, including those that automatically create network configurations for peripherals you might plug in—like an ethernet cable or a mobile USB hotspot.
 


I received the following error when I tried to update the firmware on my AirPort Extreme 802.11ac:
An error occurred while updating the firmware. -16
Can anyone tell me what "error -16" means?
It seemed like the firmware updated successfully, and the error only occurred after the updater forced the AirPort to restart. My AirPort seem to be functioning, and it now has 7.9.1, but the error makes me wonder if everything is ok.
I got the error when I clicked the update button. But when I option clicked on the version, which shows all available versions, and selected 7.9.1, it then updated successfully on a Time Capsule.
 


Apple posted an AirPort security update yesterday but didn't specify the procedure for applying the fix.
No problem, I'll use Apple's AirPort Utility on my up-to-date iPhone.
Nope, AirPort Utility says that the AirPort is already at its latest firmware version... except, no, it's obviously not. And this 802.11ac AirPort model is clearly eligible/vulnerable, according to Apple's notice.
I tried again later. Same thing.
Finally, I tried AirPort Utility (v. 6.3.7) from macOS 10.12.6, and it recognized that the security update firmware needed to be applied then, finally, performed that task.
I had the same behavior with AirPort Utility on my 2016 MacBook Pro 15", connected to a Time Capsule. Launched AirPort Utility, and it claimed the firmware to be up-to-date. Tried again a couple of times and got the same response. Then launched AirPort Utility and just left it. Within about 5 minutes, I think the 'update available' message appeared beside my Time Capsule icon, and I could proceed to download and install without issues.

I wonder if there is some behind-the-scenes queuing of Apple updates, so that clicking a 'check for updates' is just entering some request queue, and it is only when that finally gets processed - several minutes later, maybe - that the check really occurs.

This seems to be becoming 'standard' for all Apple-related updates, including those for all apps in the Mac App Store, and all iOS apps in the iTunes App Store. I now find I have to wait for some arbitrary amount of time - typically 5-10 minutes - before any available updates appear to me, and this happens on two MacBook Pros, an older iPad Pro, and my iPhone X. It happened with the macOS 10.14.5 update, for example, via Software Update in System Preferences. I had to leave the pane open for several minutes of it telling me I was already up-to-date before it changed to 'update available'.

In the Mac App Store, this behavior has become even more extreme: now I often see, in the app's entry in the App Store, that it is a new version (via version number and date) compared to what I have installed, whereas it does not appear as an 'Update' for me to apply until some number of days later. Despite the version in the store listed as a more recent version than the version I have installed, the button in the store remains at 'Open', rather than 'Update', and clicking it does just open the older installed version (I guess I should be pleased at least it does what it says.) This has been happening for the past couple of months I think, and is very frustrating. Sometimes an app doesn't appear as an 'Update' for my installed version until almost a week after it is listed in the Mac App Store. I have sometimes resorted to deleting my installed older version and then I can install the new updated version from scratch. Can it be that they're rolling out new complete versions before updaters for earlier versions?

But all in all, just another case where more information from Apple about what is going on would help me stay calm and improve my day. Maybe canned musak after one clicks an update button? :)
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
Apple Airport base stations may no longer be the fastest rig in town but they just work. While Apple may have discontinued making them, they still support them...
Apple just released a critical security update for the very latest AirPort/Time Machine models but not for any earlier model, raising major questions about security support.
 


Apple posted an AirPort security update yesterday but didn't specify the procedure for applying the fix.
Given all the problems users here have reported accomplishing the update , I wonder if the patches addressed particularly nasty real-world attacks that induced Apple to push this out before they'd done their usual amount of user testing.

In my case (Mojave, 3TB last generation Time Capsule), the first time I ran Airport Utility (6.3.9) it didn't recognize my Time Capsule as needing the update, but when I launched it again less than an hour later, it did. However, the first time I attempted to apply the patch, Airport Utility reported a problem doing so, and the second time it reported success, except that when Airport Utility attempted to restart the Time Capsule, it disconnected the router and killed my connection to the internet.

Fortunately, manually power cycling the Time Capsule integrated the update and my previous router configurations, restoring normal LAN and internet connection functions.
 


Apple just released a critical security update for the very latest AirPort/Time Machine models but not for any earlier model, raising major questions about security support.
Agreed. But give them time, they may have decided to prioritize the 6th-gen over older models. After all, the last 5th gen AirPorts were made in ~2013, and Apple may have the data to show that very few of these units remaining in the wild and hence decided against updating them. Other vendors similarly either ignore such old hardware, "accidentally" disable it, or, worse, intentionally disable it due to changing corporate strategy (see Sonos CR100).

Post-purchase support has always been a highly-variable issue; some companies offer updates for a lot longer than others. The question is always: are we getting a lot of updates because the original code is incredibly buggy / insecure or because the vendor is extra motivated to stay on top of things? :-D
 



I don't remember Apple offering security updates for older products after updating a newer one - do you have any examples of that?
I don't have detailed timelines for security patches from Apple handy, but I seem to recall different release dates for OSX patches by OS revision in the past? I'm happy to be wrong on that point, however.

FWIW, the KRACK fix was apparently released simultaneously for both the 5th- and 6th-generation AirPorts as separate firmware patches in 2017. So, we might be out of luck with the 5th-gen AirPorts.
 


I don't remember Apple offering security updates for older products after updating a newer one - do you have any examples of that?
I'm not sure this is an exact match, and I don't expect our older Airport Express N to get the Jan. 23, 2018 reprieve that Apple extended to Sierra and El Capitan.
MacRumors said:
Apple Addresses Meltdown and Spectre in macOS Sierra and OS X El Capitan With New Security Update
Apple addressed the Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities in macOS High Sierra with the release of macOS High Sierra 10.13.2, but older machines were left unprotected. Apple initially said a prior security update included fixes for the two older operating systems, but that information was later retracted.
 


I received the following error when I tried to update the firmware on my AirPort Extreme 802.11ac:
An error occurred while updating the firmware. -16
Can anyone tell me what "error -16" means?
It seemed like the firmware updated successfully, and the error only occurred after the updater forced the AirPort to restart. My AirPort seem to be functioning, and it now has 7.9.1, but the error makes me wonder if everything is ok.
I successfully updated our Airport Extreme 802.11ac without any error messages or problems. (As usual, I had to reboot my 802.11n Airport that operates in bridge mode, but both routers are working fine now.)
 




I found that the Update button didn't appear when running the Airport Utility under Yosemite. I tried leaving the Utility running on and off throughout the day yesterday. This morning I booted to Sierra and ran the Airport Utility from there, and the Update button appeared right away. Clicking it triggered the firmware download, the Airport Extreme base installed it, restarted as expected and it was up and running within minutes with firmware version 7.9.1. I did not try updating from Yosemite today, so I can't say it needed to be triggered from a newer OS.
 


Many months, maybe a couple of years, ago, I followed all the prescribed steps for updating the firmware on my flat rectangular Time Capsule (I think second generation). At the end of the update, the Time Capsule gave every impression of being a brick, in spite of everything I tried.

Yesterday, I wondered whether I could use it as an added ethernet port, so I plugged it in. The light came on (yellow), and soon turned green, with firmware 7.6.9. I am wondering whether I should risk trying to update the firmware (the Mac is a Mac Pro 5,1 running El Capitan), or just leave well enough alone.
 


I am wondering whether I should risk trying to update the Airport firmware.
There is no risk involved. If the update is applicable, only then will Airport Utility offer the update. My experience and Apple documents both indicate the following model/firmware pairs as of today:

802.11n Airport5,117 (flat) --> 7.6.9
802.11ac Airport7,120 (tower) --> 7.9.1
 


There is no risk involved. If the update is applicable, only then will Airport Utility offer the update. My experience and Apple documents both indicate the following model/firmware pairs as of today:
802.11n Airport5,117 (flat) --> 7.6.9​
802.11ac Airport7,120 (tower) --> 7.9.1​
I updated 3 AirPort towers in three different locations over three different internet services without any difficulty.
 


When I woke up my MacBook Pro this morning, it told me that there was a firmware update for my Airport Extreme. I did it without any issues. It took a few minutes, and restarted. Everything was fine after that. No problems.
 


Similar situation here, David. I have another tidbit to add, in regards to the older, pre-Wi-Fi 5 models. I run AirPort Utility 5.6.1 in Windows 10, the latest version available for Windows, where there is a menu item to initiate a "Check for Updates...". When I do so, now I get an error message saying "There was an error connecting to the update server."
Just a note to say this error has gone away, to be replaced by a proper message saying no updates are available. Normality has been returned.
 


There is no risk involved. If the update is applicable, only then will Airport Utility offer the update. My experience and Apple documents both indicate the following model/firmware pairs as of today:
802.11n Airport5,117 (flat) --> 7.6.9​
802.11ac Airport7,120 (tower) --> 7.9.1​
How do you find out the model number (AirPort5,117)? My flat one shows 7.8 with no update available.
 


How do you find out the model number (AirPort5,117)? My flat one shows 7.8 with no update available.
  • Use Airport Utility to export a configuration file.
  • Open that file with a text editor
  • Search for the Airport Model key: syAM
  • See following after that, the Airport Model string: Airport5,117
Excerpt from a configuration file (XML plist formatted):
<key>sttF</key>​
<integer>0</integer>​
<key>syAM</key>​
<string>AirPort7,120</string>​
<key>syAP</key>​
<integer>120</integer>​

I use BBEdit, as it understands formatting XML files for viewing. The free version also works and can be installed locally by clients as an aid for me.
 


Um, I just came across this article on Der Flounder:
Rich Trouton said:
Unable to enable FileVault on macOS Mojave
the resetFileVaultpassword tool needs to be run from macOS Recovery. To access this tool, use the following procedure...
Basically the resetFileVaultpassword command can reset a FileVault admin user password without requiring the original password. Really? Seriously? Doesn't this completely bypass the whole point of FileVault and the security that it entails? Or am I missing something? Or does this only work if the drive is currently decrypted?
 


Um, I just came across this article on Der Flounder:
Basically the resetFileVaultpassword command can reset a FileVault admin user password without requiring the original password. Really? Seriously? Doesn't this completely bypass the whole point of FileVault and the security that it entails? Or am I missing something? Or does this only work if the drive is currently decrypted?
Other articles at the same site show the reset requiring entry of the FileVault Recovery Key. The article quoted is repairing an inability to turn on FileVault.
 


Starting at just after 31:40 in this podcast, Joe Ressington says,
Late Night Linux said:
Late Night Linux - Episode 65
Apple are moving to a services based revenue model ... you cannot run a services based model that's based around proprietary software without collecting metrics....
Based on that statement, Joe then calls out Apple's privacy claims. Is it true that it isn't possible for Apple (or anyone) to deliver proprietary cloud based services without collecting metrics?

Here's something about "Sign in With Apple" in the context of metrics and privacy:
TechCrunch said:
Apple introduces 'Sign in with Apple' to help protect your privacy
... when you don’t want to provide your real email address to protect your privacy, Apple will auto-generate a random “relay” email address that hides your real email address.
If the "relay" email works through an iCloud email address associated with the generating device, Apple has supplanted the service provider's access to information about its users and transferred it to Apple.

That's consistent with how Apple disrupted use of WiFi to track store customers by randomizing Mac addresses on iPhones. Apple presented that as privacy enhancement. It also enabled Apple to replace the old system with iBeacon and thus put Apple in position to capture and market metrics previously available to the stores themselves.
 


A few take-away points from the Advances in macOS Security session at WWDC 2019:

First, (although several minutes into the talk), long-term intention for macOS is that users can run the (compatible) software they want to on macOS. However, over the longer term, the default isn't going to be "run it with overt permission from the user" unless the app/bundled is signed and notarized.

Apple seems to be looking to make the security on macOS closer to that of iOS, but not exactly the same - probably better characterized as similar defaults (my words, not theirs). My impression is that there will be a need to overtly indicate "yes, i really mean to do this" more often for software that is completely out of the normal Apple developer process.

Second, getting software signed and notarized is going to be increasingly expected (even outside of downloading stuff from the internet). Gatekeeper is going to get incrementally closer to what Windows Defender* is, the default "bad software" detector on the OS. macOS 10.15 will start scanning all apps for "malicious content" (not just stuff downloaded over the internet or by the normal means of falling into Gatekeeper 'quarantine'). Apps invoked from the command line are going to increasingly fall under Gatekeeper's watch too - so side-loaded, disk copy loaded, etc. start to get checked.

Old software will run, but new stuff is going to fall under the scope. In some future macOS version, the scope will be far more complete.

(Scripting not being present by default in the future and all apps being scrutinized in the future may be slightly coupled. They didn't talk about it, but for build systems like Homebrew, MacPorts, etc., there is probably some new roadmap work to do. Or at least strike up some conversations with Apple.)

Third, the normal process of users explicitly opening files won't change much with new file protections. However, application which "roam" in the file system not under overt user control will cause substantially more dialog boxes to pop up (along the lines of "did you know this program is looking in your contacts/documents/network-drive/etc. for info?" There may be some corner cases where this will be more of a pain. e.g., "migrate and import my browser settings from app X to app Y will overtly expose much more of that process.)

Fourth, screen and keyboard recording will require more overt user consent. (in my opinion, it is currently a lot easier than it should be for one app to record and get access to info in another app than it should be. This is probably a good thing.)

Fifth, again, scripting of apps will have more "do you mean to do this" consent prompts.


* Windows Defender hasn't killed off antivirus/malware apps on Windows. Apple's Gatekeeper doing some mostly reactive checking probably isn't going to "Sherlock" a slew of apps on macOS either. It may help, since lots of users are in the "Macs don't get infected" mindset...
 



,,, Is it true that it isn't possible for Apple (or anyone) to deliver proprietary cloud based services without collecting metrics? ...
There is a substantial difference between won't collect any metrics and won't collect metrics on a specific individual/session. If data goes immediately into the aggregation "pot" with zero mapping back to the specific origin point, then technically they're collecting metrics but would not be collecting metrics on individuals. So if the wording is that they won't collect info on 'you', that would still be in compliance. (It can't possibly be the data is excluded from all transitive connections to collection/usage. The system admins wouldn't even be able to look at the load factor (e.g. something like activity monitor)...)
Here's something about "Sign in With Apple" in the context of metrics and privacy:
If the "relay" email works through an iCloud email address associated with the generating device, Apple has supplanted the service provider's access to information about its users and transferred it to Apple.
Nothing particularly significant is transferred to Apple (presuming they aren't harvesting the contexts of emails sent to that relay address). When you sign up you typically have to give your name, contact info, perhaps a credit card, and finally a contact email. Apple is really only generating the contact email in a fashion similar to how a password generator would generate a password.

The provider still has the rest of your contact info. So point-to-point contact with you, the only thing they don't have is a globally unique email ID to track you across their and other sites. That is the only thing they have really lost. If a phone number was provided, they only lost one of two global unique IDs . But they haven't lost any of the one-to-one interactions with them. Your privacy email is still a globally unique ID. You'll log into that system every single time with the same unique ID. Any of your interactions with that site are all have that primary key attached to them.

There is no huge tracking difference between john.smith@someemail.com and 1z3dF6PvBM@someemail.com if sending them to the same service all the time as a login ID.

As for Apple somehow getting a 'leg up' because the email contents come through them, check the full header details on some random set of emails in your inbox sometime. Most email hops through relay servers along the way. All of those folks temporarily had a copy. Relay folks don't want to hold onto emails any longer than they have to.

The 'value add' for Apple here seems primarily to make the Apple ID more useful (valuable). I think this is hooked to "Two Factor" so it helps more folks buy into Two Factor if they have been holding out. That means they have a safer pool of users, which helps their "we work harder to protect your privacy" major marketing message. If people don't consider their Apple ID valuable, then Apple services aren't as valuable. That's the "money maker" here.

Apple might get incrementally better metrics about which services were more popular, but which apps are running the most on phones is often available to them now, so it isn't like they are in the dark. I don't see a huge data win here (outside of deliberate snooping on the contents of the emails).
That's consistent with how Apple disrupted use of WiFi to track store customers by randomizing Mac addresses on iPhones.
Which is pragmatically side-stepped by stores offering 'Free Wi-Fi'. If you actually connect to the Internet through them, then they do get one.

What MAC radomization really more addressed was privacy leaking in the overall Wi-Fi standard. Wi-Fi devices chirp at networks even if not connecting (just to see what is available). Can't change the Wi-Fi standard, so Apple mitigated that.
It also enabled Apple to replace the old system with iBeacon and thus put Apple in position to capture and market metrics previously available to the stores themselves.
How does Apple harvest all of that data on the store side? iBeacon leverages Bluetooth and there is a similar 'chirping' there, too. And you can't mutate the device ID, because the core process is that paired devices are looking for one another. If a bluetooth device broadccasts "I'm not me", then how is the paired device going to find them?

iBeacon is far more, in my opinion, trying to layer something productive over something that has to happen anyway. It helps makes what is going on a two-way street. Stores offer out coupons/offers/etc. that is of possible value to customers, and the store could collect visit info. If you normally have bluetooth off, no tracking and no offers.
 


Is it true that it isn't possible for Apple (or anyone) to deliver proprietary cloud based services without collecting metrics?
My 2018 iPad 9.7" just updated to iOS 12.3.1 The good news is the update worked just fine; the not so good news is I've spent considerable time in the Byzantine layers of drop down menus trying to understand privacy settings.
Siri Suggestions, Search & Privacy
Siri analyzes how you use your device and Apps to provide personalized suggestions and better search results using local, on-device processing . . . Using information stored on your device, such as your Safari browsing history, emails, messages, and contacts, as well as information contributed by other installed Apps, Siri can suggest shortcuts and provide suggestions in Searches, Look Up, News, Photo Memories, and more. When you run a Siri suggested shortcut, you are subject to the third party App's terms and conditions and privacy policy.​
While the implication above is that Siri is doing only local, on-device processing, the language doesn't say that. Even if all the processing is local (Apple outsourcing its AI load to users' devices?), the result is Apple gets the results to, among others, target Apple News stories at individuals. Whether that news is "cats vs. dogs" or "right vs. left" focus, it is personal.
Nothing particularly significant is transferred to Apple (presuming they aren't harvesting the contexts of emails sent to that relay address).
Per the transcribed quote above, Apple says it is doing exactly that kind of harvesting, and from more than emails.

I recently learned of a "feature" in iOS that's buried deep in the menus. You'll find it in
Settings > Privacy > Location Services > System Services > Significant Locations > (passcode required) > History.

On my WiFi iPad, history is empty. But on my daughter's iPhone, it's stuffed because she didn't realize letting apps (Google Maps, Apple Maps, and a couple of others) have Location access "While Using" would result in iOS storing her travel history.

While my iPad lacks GPS, when I turned on Apple Maps and let it have access to Location Services, it placed my location within feet. I presume that's because the location of our office WiFi network has been cross-linked to Apple's servers from devices that do have GPS.

There are a a lot of "privacy" options in iOS. Most of them seem to be off by default and require users to enable [for more privacy]. There's a wealth of settings that disappear when "Location Settings" aren't enabled, including "iPad Analytics."
If you normally have bluetooth off, no tracking and no offers.
Given that Apple has removed the headphone jack, meaning iPhone users who want to listen to music or connect to car systems pretty much need Bluetooth, the Apple Watch depends on Bluetooth, as will the recently announced "Find My" service, who's going to turn Bluetooth off?
 


Given that Apple has removed the headphone jack, meaning iPhone users who want to listen to music or connect to car systems pretty much need Bluetooth
Not necessarily. Apple still sells EarPods with Lightning Connector and a Lightning to 3.5 mm Headphone Jack Adapter (and a USB-C version for those who need it).

Bluetooth is definitely more convenient, especially if you need to charge your device at the same time you're using headphones, but even then, you can use a lightning splitter to let you attach a charger and your headphones at once.

For cars, however, it's even easier. An ordinary Lightning-USB cable is sufficient to connect an iPhone to most car audio systems. And Apple seems to be recommending this because CarPlay only works over USB, not over Bluetooth (at least that's the case in our 2018 Kia Sedona).
 


Bluetooth is definitely more convenient...
Good points, all, David. Are we unique in preferring wires to Bluetooth? And not having connected watches, headphones, speakers, IoT with BT? And do our preferences matter when Apple has its own?
The Verge said:
Why does my phone make it so hard to turn off Bluetooth?
It’s a deliberate move by Apple: under iOS 11, turning Bluetooth off from the control center simply puts Bluetooth on time out until the next morning instead of disabling it permanently. Even when it’s off, the antenna stays on, looking for new devices. You can turn it all the way off by digging into the settings menu, but as soon as you turn it on for any reason, the cycle starts again.
Before iOS 13 and Catalina, "Find My" used only cellular. WiFi, or perhaps wired Internet. The new "Find My" announced at WWDC creates a worldwide Bluetooth mesh network of Apple devices communicating with each other and Apple servers. It will be interesting to see how the impetus to push that service affects Apple settings and Apple users.
 


Amazon disclaimer:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Latest posts