5 ms·

Theoretically, couldn't Apple push an auto-update to the phone that could decrypt the data?

by guelo 11y ago

jacobwil 11y ago
Where would that software auto-update get the decryption key from? If the user has enabled a passcode, then their passcode is used in generation of the key used to protect the disk encryption key. Even if apple did push an update, the user would still have to unlock their device post-update.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  If the secure enclave runs signed updates, the rate limiting/auto-wipe could be removed.
- baddox 11y ago
  The update could wait for the next time the user types in that password. If you own the phone (which you do if you can push OS updates), you can own the data on it. There's no way around that, unless the phone is already confiscated or the user knows to not type in their password.
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    > which you do if you can push OS updates Unless Apple already inserted a secret backdoor that allows for forced updates, you don't have to update the phone when it prompts you. The closest I've seen it get is a reminder that asks you if you'd like to schedule an update for 2:00 AM or some such time, and then asks for your passcode to do so. You still need to type it for the explicit purpose of updating for it to go through.
    - crazypyro 11y ago
      Was there not a huge storm when iOS 7 came out because they automatically pushed the update?
      - johncolanduoni 11y ago
        I don't remember that happening to my phone, but it's possible. Prior to iOS 8 Apple says (in these court documents) it is technically feasible to break into your phone anyway. I know that recent updates download automatically on Wi-Fi, perhaps that was what you're thinking of?
      - nosuchthing 11y ago
        There was the time where they auto-downloaded U2's album into everyone's iPhone..
      - comex 11y ago
        That was about iOS automatically downloading the update file in the background (and at the time lacking an option to delete it), not automatically installing anything.
        crazypyro 11y ago
        Ah okay, thanks for the clarification.
    - jonknee 11y ago
      Stuff like carrier settings get updated behind the scenes, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Apple can force an OTA update. That's even a feature for enterprise customers.
      - tonyarkles 11y ago
        I'm pretty sure, for me, it asks before allowing the carrier updates.
- olliej 11y ago
  No, installing an update requires the passcode. Look for the OTA update stuff in the security white paper.
vessenes 11y ago
There is US case-law around this issue; the Federal government cannot compel "speech"; code is speech.
- charlesdm 11y ago
  Good thing some US judges are sane. Hats off to the judge(s) who ruled this.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  There are other ways to interpret it, which might soon be attempted. The 5th protects you from being compelled to be a witness at your own trial, it does not however protects from destroying evidence, interfering with a police investigation or hindering justice. If you intentionally destroy incriminating evidence that's a crime, if you prevent the police from executing a search warrant that's a crime too, a court can order you to present existing physical evidence including private diaries, recordings, or anything else and refusal to do so is a crime. Now while you can say that a code is "speech" it's wouldn't be that hard to claim that it isn't, handing out a code isn't baring witness, this isn't speech in any sense, you can already be compelled to give DNA and fingerprints. That code essentially is a device that serves only 1 purpose and it is to unlock your phone, if you build your house in a nuclear silo and refuse to give the police the keys when presented with a search warrant they'll lock you up, quite a few constitutional lawyers can argue that this example can also be applied to passwords, encryption keys, and other similar devices.
  - vessenes 11y ago
    There's a little bit of helpful background from the EFF here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq. I'm not a lawyer. :)
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      That link is completely unrelated are you sure you've linked the correct one?
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
They may not have the ability to target an update to a specific phone. Also, the phone could be configured to prompt before installing updates.
djrogers 11y ago
The update couldn't be installed without someone unlocking the phone first... Not to mention the legal side of that would be very murky, I doubt any judge/court in the US could compel that action.
joosters 11y ago
Some (but not all) user data on the phone is encrypted with the password, so no update would extract it all.
malcolmgreaves 11y ago
Nope! That's the beauty of it: mathematical, real barriers to decrypting.

Theoretically, couldn't Apple push an auto-update to the phone that could decrypt the data?

by guelo 11y ago

Theoretically, couldn't Apple push an auto-update to the phone that could decrypt the data?

Where would that software auto-update get the decryption key from? If the user has enabled a passcode, then their passcode is used in generation of the key used to protect the disk encryption key. Even if apple did push an update, the user would still have to unlock their device post-update.

MichaelGG 11y ago
If the secure enclave runs signed updates, the rate limiting/auto-wipe could be removed.
baddox 11y ago
The update could wait for the next time the user types in that password. If you own the phone (which you do if you can push OS updates), you can own the data on it. There's no way around that, unless the phone is already confiscated or the user knows to not type in their password.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  > which you do if you can push OS updates Unless Apple already inserted a secret backdoor that allows for forced updates, you don't have to update the phone when it prompts you. The closest I've seen it get is a reminder that asks you if you'd like to schedule an update for 2:00 AM or some such time, and then asks for your passcode to do so. You still need to type it for the explicit purpose of updating for it to go through.
  - crazypyro 11y ago
    Was there not a huge storm when iOS 7 came out because they automatically pushed the update?
    - johncolanduoni 11y ago
      I don't remember that happening to my phone, but it's possible. Prior to iOS 8 Apple says (in these court documents) it is technically feasible to break into your phone anyway. I know that recent updates download automatically on Wi-Fi, perhaps that was what you're thinking of?
    - nosuchthing 11y ago
      There was the time where they auto-downloaded U2's album into everyone's iPhone..
    - comex 11y ago
      That was about iOS automatically downloading the update file in the background (and at the time lacking an option to delete it), not automatically installing anything.
      - crazypyro 11y ago
        Ah okay, thanks for the clarification.
  - jonknee 11y ago
    Stuff like carrier settings get updated behind the scenes, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Apple can force an OTA update. That's even a feature for enterprise customers.
    - tonyarkles 11y ago
      I'm pretty sure, for me, it asks before allowing the carrier updates.
olliej 11y ago
No, installing an update requires the passcode. Look for the OTA update stuff in the security white paper.

vessenes 11y ago

There is US case-law around this issue; the Federal government cannot compel "speech"; code is speech.

charlesdm 11y ago
Good thing some US judges are sane. Hats off to the judge(s) who ruled this.
dogma1138 11y ago
There are other ways to interpret it, which might soon be attempted. The 5th protects you from being compelled to be a witness at your own trial, it does not however protects from destroying evidence, interfering with a police investigation or hindering justice. If you intentionally destroy incriminating evidence that's a crime, if you prevent the police from executing a search warrant that's a crime too, a court can order you to present existing physical evidence including private diaries, recordings, or anything else and refusal to do so is a crime. Now while you can say that a code is "speech" it's wouldn't be that hard to claim that it isn't, handing out a code isn't baring witness, this isn't speech in any sense, you can already be compelled to give DNA and fingerprints. That code essentially is a device that serves only 1 purpose and it is to unlock your phone, if you build your house in a nuclear silo and refuse to give the police the keys when presented with a search warrant they'll lock you up, quite a few constitutional lawyers can argue that this example can also be applied to passwords, encryption keys, and other similar devices.
- vessenes 11y ago
  There's a little bit of helpful background from the EFF here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq. I'm not a lawyer. :)
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    That link is completely unrelated are you sure you've linked the correct one?

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

They may not have the ability to target an update to a specific phone. Also, the phone could be configured to prompt before installing updates.

djrogers 11y ago

The update couldn't be installed without someone unlocking the phone first... Not to mention the legal side of that would be very murky, I doubt any judge/court in the US could compel that action.

joosters 11y ago

Some (but not all) user data on the phone is encrypted with the password, so no update would extract it all.

malcolmgreaves 11y ago

Nope! That's the beauty of it: mathematical, real barriers to decrypting.