26 ms·

Huge props to Apple - here's hoping against hope that Google, Facebook, and Amazon get behind this. One thing I was wondering is how Apple is even able to crea

by epaga 11y ago

Huge props to Apple - here's hoping against hope that Google, Facebook, and Amazon get behind this. One thing I was wondering is how Apple is even able to create a backdoor. It is explained toward the end: "The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer." This is actually quite reassuring - what this means is that even Apple can't break into an iPhone with a secure passphrase (10+ characters) and disabled Touch ID - which is hackable with a bit of effort to get your fingerprint.

Oletros 11y ago
> Huge props to Apple - here's hoping against hope that Google, Facebook, and Amazon get behind this. Why against hope?
- rincebrain 11y ago
  It's an idiom [1]. [1] - http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hope+against+hope http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hope+against+hope
  - Oletros 11y ago
    I know that it is an idiom, I asking why he has no hope
    - konradb 11y ago
      From the link that was posted in reply to you, 'hope against hope' means 'to have hope even when the situation appears to be hopeless'. Which means he does have hope, even though the situation appears to be hopeless.
      - Oletros 11y ago
        Yeees, I'm asking why he thinks there is little hope that they will stand
        konradb 11y ago
        Sorry, misinterpreted you, in over-literal mind mode right now!
        Oletros 11y ago
        No problem
      - div 11y ago
        I think Oletros understands that perfectly, but is wondering why OP feels that the situation appears to be hopeless.
      - jcrites 11y ago
        Why is the situation hopeless? Google, for example, has been undertaking efforts for years to improve security on the Internet, in part for the purpose of protecting privacy. Seven days ago they were featured in an article about how they're going to warn users of Gmail whose incoming emails are not protected by SSL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11067050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11067050 - this is part of their Safer Email initiative. Some time ago they released a Transparency Report as part of that initiative describing which senders to/from Gmail support encryption: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/saferemail/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/saferemail/ - and that's not to mention their efforts promoting HTTPS. I see these efforts as Google going far out of its way to support privacy and security on the web.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - Oletros 11y ago
    You should read your link, because this is not what it says
    - natch 11y ago
      You're right, the headline is sensationalizing his actual words. I'm retracting that comment.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  When a US senator expressed upset with Wikileaks, Amazon shut them down. Not even a court order, just a tantrum from a politician. If you really think Amazon aren't cheerfully inviting the US government into their datacentres, you haven't been paying attention.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rms_returns 11y ago
With Google's Android, this issue will never arise because Android is open source. Any attempt to plant a backdoor will be outright monitored by the community.
- firloop 11y ago
  Not too sure about this. Keep in mind that in most commercially sold Android phones, closed source, self updating, Google Play Services is installed by the manufacturer with system level privileges. That alone is enough to create a non insignificant back door.
  - rms_returns 11y ago
    But you can always root your phone and install Cyanogenmod from scratch, right? Agreed that this is not too trivial right now because of standardization issues, but it could be done if you really care about privacy.
    - cyphar 11y ago
      Not all of CyanogenMod is free software (you still have a bunch of binary blobs, and everyone has to use Google Play Services anyway because every app seems to implicitly require it). Replicant would be a much better alternative if it actually supported anything newer than 2G.
      - ionised 11y ago
        > and everyone has to use Google Play Services anyway This isn't true. You can stick to app repositories like F-Droid and use Raccoon to download Play Store apps via your desktop without using a Google account on your phone.
        noarchy 11y ago
        It is true that you can get Play Store apps without a Google Account, but the Place Services framework does a lot more than this. Many apps rely upon the framework for certain pieces of functionality from Google's libraries.
legulere 11y ago
Why wold Google and Facebook get behind this? They store their customers data in a way they can access and subsequently have to give it to persecuters when there's a court order
- danieldk 11y ago
  If government agencies has unfettered access to data, it undermines the reputation of these companies. For instance, in Europe, many companies and organisations are likely even more hesitant to use Google's services since the Snowden leaks. This is a large loss of potential revenue. Google has been (even more) proactive about security and encryption since then, since part of their business model relies on trust.
- Oletros 11y ago
  > Why wold Google and Facebook get behind this? They store their customers data in a way they can access and subsequently have to give it to persecuters when there's a court order Exactly like Apple. Or do you think that the emails in iCloud are not given to the prosecutors?
  - legulere 11y ago
    Yes exactly like apple. To quote the link: "When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it." The point I was trying to make is that Google and Facebook have direct access to all the data of their customers, and already provide access to government agencies. Contrary to Apple they don't safely store some data of their costumers safely on the device, which this case is about.
    - Oletros 11y ago
      > The point I was trying to make is that Google and Facebook have direct access to all the data of their customers, and already provide access to government agencies. Contrary to Apple they don't safely store some data of their costumers safely on the device, which this case is about. Your point is wrong regarding Google and smartphones if the smartphone is encrypted
hosay123 11y ago
What it sounds like is they've been asked to prepare a new OS release that allows an unlimited number of attempts to enter the passphrase via some network link. The press release is written to sound like without a software release, it wouldn't be possible to mount this kind of attack, however attacks like this are generally possible regardless of having some specially modified and signed OS image: for example, by cutting power to the hardware precisely when it is clear a password was incorrect, before the hardware has time to implement any destructive actions. Attacks like this have been used against SIM cards since the 90s. I'm ambivalent regarding Apple's stance. In principle they are doing the right thing, but in practice, it seems they may be kicking up a whole lot of fuss over a relatively minor issue (with the exception that providing an easy means to brute force a phone to the authorities sets a horrible precedent). As for creating a universal backdoor, it seems highly unlikely they couldn't produce a signed OS / coprocessor firmware image that wasn't locked to one of the various serial numbers associated with this particular device edit: as mentioned below, this order entirely originates with Apple's use of DRM to prevent software modification. Had users actual control over the devices they own the FBI wouldn't need to request a signed firmware in the first place. Please think twice about what Apple might really be defending here before downvoting
- giovannibajo1 11y ago
  It used to be possible to do what you describe (cutting power at the right moment) and there were even physical bruteforce devices built to implement this but it's all been hardened in iOS 8 and there are no currently known ways to bruteforce a passcode. Obviously there might theoretically exist a software bug to do so, but there's no information around and it sounds even FBI couldn't find it if it exists
  - akavel 11y ago
    Could you elaborate on how's that prevented? I'm quite curious. [Or did someone already explain in some other post somewhere in this thread?] edit: self-answer: the following post seems to have an answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11115579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11115579, although it seems to describe a newer device than the one in the case; but I was interested in how such protection is possible at all, so that seems to answer it for me.
ank_the_elder 11y ago
Absolutely. I'm quite amazed they had the guts to go through with this and I applaud it. I will support them with my dollars as much as possible.
- djkslgjeklas 11y ago
  Talk is cheap and these internet posts - from Tim Cooke, you, and me - are just talk. The security of this nation depends on Apple (and Google et. seq.) supporting us with its dollars as much as possible. And I'm not optimistic that the stockholders care about anything more than doing the opposite.
  - Umn44 11y ago
    You are correct... see this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY Brezinski at a press conference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g Major powers, and imposing control over the awakened masses. https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397 https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397
  - tobylane 11y ago
    Some people already complain that the iPhone is too expensive, especially compared to non-equal Android phones. Not enough people complain about any company not fighting for their user's security. Talk is all we need so far. Publicly saying no to the FBI is a step rarely taken.
  - sjwright 11y ago
    Talk is not cheap when you have to back up such talk with a substantial legal defence. And any stockholder with an ounce of intelligence will understand that Apple's choices here are both morally right and effective marketing. As the information age matures, privacy is becoming a valuable asset, and Apple is starting to gain a positive reputation in this space.
    - 11y ago
bambax 11y ago
I don't see how this "reassuring"; to me it's rather very confusing (as mentioned in many other comments). If Apple could in fact write a software backdoor, doesn't it mean that the backdoor exists, at least potentially? And how can one be sure that Apple is the only company able to build that door? At the very least, couldn't the right Apple engineer be either bribed or forced (by terrorists or the government) to build it? "Impossible" should mean "impossible", not "not yet done, but possible".
- elmigranto 11y ago
  Not possible without backing it into iOS with some update that FBI is claiming will be used on one particular phone in this particular case. Apple reasons that there is no way to guarantee no one will take the same update and apply it to other iOS devices. Or government taking this a step further by making Apple to build that into future update for the whole user base.
- epaga 11y ago
  What it means is that the best the FBI can come up with is "Make a way for us to brute force attack the passphrase." And brute force attack is worthless for a strong enough passphrase. That's what is reassuring. Not to mention that this is for the iPhone 5c. As other comments have mentioned, newer iPhones have the hardware-based Secure Enclave which add to the difficulty of breaking into the phone. https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    It could also be that the FBI has already obtained the info, or can obtain the info through illegal means and simply want to use the issue to force legislative and policy changes or public opinion changes in their favor, and or just want to legitimize their having the information.
  - andreyvit 11y ago
    My reading of that PDF is that Secure Enclave software can be updated too, it simply does an independent verification of the Apple's digital signature. So while the Secure Enclave enforces the delay between brute force attempts, Apple could still release an update that removes that delay.
threatofrain 11y ago
I'm afraid I'm too skeptical to get the same assurances as you. Apple accuses the FBI of playing language games with the term "backdoor", but I think Apple has done the same. The fact that they can push weak OS updates to a locked phone is the backdoor. This means that they can already comply with the court order, and they likely will. This letter covers them from PR damage.
- hardlianotion 11y ago
  This is not apparent from the article. Where could I find out about this ability?
  - forgotpwtomain 11y ago
    If such an ability doesn't exist than how does this potential threat follow? (article) > But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. I am also missing a key part of the technical details involved in this this situation.
- em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
  Freedom from forced update is one of Stallman's motivations for free software. Just one terrorist attack + PR letter to customer + forced update away from loosing encryption on your phone.
  - kec 11y ago
    On the other hand, if iOS were open source / the iPhone was able to run unsigned code there would be nothing stopping the FBI from just doing what they've asked apple to do themselves (assuming it's actually technically possible).
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - cmurf 11y ago
jkn 11y ago
Does Apple do an amazing job protecting their users' privacy? Yes! But frankly in this case I find the FBI makes more sense than Apple. Apple says: All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission As I understand, Apple complains about the introduction of this new threat model: 1. criminal steals someone's iPhone, 2. gets hold of a special iOS version that Apple keeps internally to assist the government, 3. pushes the OS update to the iPhone by themselves, 4. uses some tool to automate brute-forcing the user passcode At least that's what I get from these excerpts: Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer. Now how serious is this threat? And how useful is it to have the FBI be able to look into a phone when they have a warrant? Does the balance between the right to privacy and the need to assist criminal investigation really tilt towards privacy in this specific case? Meanwhile there are serious threats that do affect a lot of users in practice, where Apple does a good job but could do better still such as: - Remote code execution on iOS (6 vulnerabilities in 2016 so far[1]) - Phishing, brute force and social engineering attacks (the improved two-factor authentication is not yet available to everyone[2]) Am I wrong in thinking that users are way more likely to be affected by these threats except when the government has a warrant? If Apple is actually worried about the FBI getting access to the modified iOS version, they should focus their complaint on that and propose to do the whole data extraction in-house. [1] http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-49/product_id-15556/year-2016/opec-1/Apple-Iphone-Os.html http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-49/pr... [2] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204915 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204915
- datashovel 11y ago
  I think the question is less about whether or not a "correct / valid use" of this new technology is acceptable. The problem is that it's impossible (once it exists) to guarantee it won't be used in malicious ways.
tosseraccount 11y ago
Let's get behind Google, Facebook and Amazon to protect our privacy?
- justin_oaks 11y ago
  Let's get behind Google, Facebook, and Amazon in their desire to not to hand over our data to the government. Even with as much data as each of them has, it's still better that the data isn't given to yet another party (the government, or each other).
  - tosseraccount 11y ago
    Is it "our" data? Or is it their data? You don't think they share this with their business partners?
SoMuchToGrok 11y ago
Like you, I appreciate the sentiment - happy to hear Apple speaking up. However this shouldn't change how we use Apple products. I operate under the implication that the device is compromised from the factory. Closed source software cannot be trusted, good faith is not enough.
- fixermark 11y ago
  I can't disagree with your point of view; I merely point out that a world where everyone who wants a secure smartphone needs to own their own smartphone factory isn't a very practical world.
  - em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
    Only needs to have access to software source code, and presumably a way to verify the binaries match. Not an entire factory.
    - HappyTypist 11y ago
      They also need to verify the hardware does what it's supposed to do, and the CPU doesn't have secret opcodes.
- ufmace 11y ago
  Considering how many massive, gaping security flaws have been found in Open Source software in the last year or so alone that have been in place for years or decades, I think we can say that open source software cannot be trusted either.
  - SoMuchToGrok 11y ago
    Open source software can be trusted as much as we can trust ourselves - and that's as good as trust gets. I'll take that any day over trusting one party with a vested interest in making money.
tossaway1 11y ago
What do you want thone other companies to get behind? They don't manufacture phones like Apple does, right...? Note that this letter says: "When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it." Seels like that detail is getting very little attention in this announcement. Really? If the FYI requests any data, they hand it over...?
- creshal 11y ago
  Goole makes Android; Amazon makes FireOS. No idea what't the deal with Facebook is. > Really? If the FYI requests any data, they hand it over...? They have to, there's no legal wiggle room here. Creating backdoors OTOH seems to be sufficiently legally questionable that Apple can risk noncompliance. (Of course, Apple could not accumulate all that data in the first place, but that would be silly, obviously. Now please sync your wifi passwords to iCloud.)
- dr_zoidberg 11y ago
  Would you complain about Apple handing in information to solve the murder of a loved one? Why is it always the "bad government" argument? It's not that it doesn't happen, but usually those requests are aimed towards more "mundane" cases. For example, I have friends who work in law (though not in the US), and the number 1 data request -which is revised by a judge, and only then given by companies- are call logs from telephones (just from/to, date, time, duration, nothing fancy). And this are extremely helpful and information rich, if you know how to use them.
  - fixermark 11y ago
    Utilitarian philosophy argument. The benefit gained by solving one murdered loved-one case is badly offset by the loss accrued to everyone by no longer having the security protections they expected. This specific case, in fact, is pretty close to "murder of a loved one;" the phone's owner killed people, and the FBI wants to find out if they were part of a bigger plot.
  - tossaway1 11y ago
    I'm all for supporting law enforcement efforts, but the wording seemed to imply that Apple hands over any requested info to the FBI, which seems excessive. But I was mainly pointing out that quote because it wasn't clear what lesson the parent commenter wanted Google, Facebook, and Amazon to be learning from Apple. I would have guessed it'd have something to do with protection of user data, but the letter says they turn over any user data they have!
ChrisArgyle 11y ago
Isn't it odd that this press release spends so much time discussing encryption? Neither the FBI nor Apple will be touching any encryption functions of the device. It seems the primary aim of this statement is to prevent rumors that would spook Apple users into thinking their data is fair game
ryanackley 11y ago
The government wants Apple to disable the auto-erase after so many unlock attempts. Apple argues in this letter that with modern computing power, this amounts to a backdoor. The details of the gov't request are in another story on the HN front page https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160216/17393733617/no-judge-did-not-just-order-apple-to-break-encryption-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone-to-create-new-backdoor.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160216/17393733617/no-ju...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jandrese 11y ago
  The encryption key used on the root filesystem is too hard to brute force. It's not based on some crappy password that a human created, it's some hash value stored in the hardware. In a scenario like that it is easy to create a key that would require all of the computers working till the heat death of the universe to crack.
  - sre_ops 11y ago
    This phone does not have SE. It is purely software and Apple can defeat it easily. This is the exact attack vector that was addressed by Apple in the phones with SE.
  - dkonofalski 11y ago
    They're not trying to brute-force the encryption key. They're attempting to brute-force the PIN lock on the phone. Currently they can't because the settings on the phone cause a timeout after each unsuccessful login, the phone wipes after 10 failed attempts, and the PIN cannot be accepted from anywhere except the device display. These are the security functions that the FBI wants Apple to remove. They want to be able to hook up a computer via the lightning cable to brute-force the PIN and give them access to the phone's contents.
bobby_9x 11y ago
Google worked with the NSA and Facebook not only worked with the NSA, but now has ties to China and the Chinese government (which have the most advanced spying and censoring Internet technology around). So, I'm doubtful.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
".. what this means is that even Apple can't break into an iPhone with a secure passphrase (10+ characters) and disabled Touch ID - which is hackable with a bit of effort to get your fingerprint." That is not exactly true. They wrote the OS, they designed the phone, they know where the JTAG connectors are. Cracking the phone apart and putting is logic board up on a debugger would likely enable them to bypass security. From what I understand Tim is doing, and I greatly admire, is trying to avoid a judicial requirement that they be able to do this on demand. The so called "back door" requirement, because he knows, as others do, that such a feature would be used by more than the intended audience, and for more than the intended uses, to the detriment of Apple's users. What I really find amazing is that I was at a talk hosted by the East-West Institute where the Air Force General of the new cyber command (whose name escapes me) complained that "we" (silicon valley) had let the government down by not writing strong enough crypto to keep our adversaries out. I remarked that it was the ITARS regulation and the Commerce department at the behest of the NSA which had tied our hands in that regard, and that with a free reign we would have, and could do, much better. Whit Diffie was there and also made the same point with them. And now, here we are 10 years later, and we "fixed" it, and now its our fault that they can't break into this stuff? Guess what? Our adversaries can't either! The right to privacy, and the right of companies to secure that right with technology for their customers, is a very important topic and deserves the attention. I am really glad that one of the most valuable companies in the world is drawing a bright line in the sand. So I really support Tim's position on this one.
- jessedhillon 11y ago
  > That is not exactly true. They wrote the OS, they designed the phone, they know where the JTAG connectors are. Cracking the phone apart and putting is logic board up on a debugger would likely enable them to bypass security. Is this true? That would have to mean that either the passphrase is stored on the device or that the data is not encrypted at rest. Neither of these sound likely, frankly
  - shdon 11y ago
    It doesn't have to mean any of that. As long as the 10 mistakes limit is enforced in software or in a separate chip that can be replaced without replacing the actual encryption key, it can be bypassed. Then it is a simple matter of simply brute-forcing the pin code. Since these are usually 4 digits, there's only 10000 possibilities, which is laughable to a brute force attacked.
FIX_IT 11y ago
When I forgot the password for my iPhone I tried untill it said "connect to ITunes" when I connected to iTunes nothing happened so I clicked restore realised I had not backed up my iPhone so I clicked backup hoping that it would backup but it said that I needed to sign in this then relied the boundary of not letting me type the password in or holding me back. So I have created a program that repeatedly does that. (There are no need for fancy backdoors)
bdrool 11y ago
> here's hoping against hope that Google, Facebook, and Amazon get behind this I would assume that Google, Facebook, and Amazon are already sending every single keystroke we type straight to all the three letter agencies pretty much in real time. (I also assume the same about Apple, so I'm not sure what to make of this open letter.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
beloch 11y ago
Important to remember: Anyone who has your phone also has an object covered in your finger prints. Don't rely on Touch ID for actual security.
- r00fus 11y ago
  Important to remember: All iPhones since the 3GS have oleophobic surface coating (which combined with cloth pockets means the screen stays relatively clean). Also important to remember, fingerprints on a random surface are VERY hard to copy onto latex milk or PCB substrate. Please continue to think
hobarrera 11y ago
> Huge props to Apple They may be doing it for people right to privacy, but don't forget they might also be doing this because their image would become tainted irrevocably if they complied with this. Trust in Apple devices would be shattered (across those who currently trust Apple).
adam12 11y ago
What puzzles me is why the government didn't impose a gag order like they sometimes do in cases like this.
- sjwright 11y ago
  Because a gag order would have to be absolutely legally watertight, which is likely impossible in this case.
skewart 11y ago
"...and disabled Touch ID - which is hackable with a bit of effort to get your fingerprint." As long as we're on the topic of encryption, phones, and law enforcement it's worth keeping in mind that in the US at least courts can compel you to unlock your phone with Touch ID, even though they can't compel you to give them a password. Communicating a password is considered speech, so self-incriminating speech is protected by the fifth amendment. Physically holding your finger to a device is not considered speech and so it's not protected. I think this is an interesting, and perhaps underappreciated, aspect of a shift from passwords to biometrics for verifying identity. It would shift the power dynamic between civilians and government a bit - here in the US at least. Of course, hopefully no one is in a situation where they need to protect themselves against over-reaching or unjust government officials any time soon. http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/31/court-rules-touch-id-is-not-protected-by-the-fifth-amendment-bu/ http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/31/court-rules-touch-id-is-n...
- spanktar 11y ago
  When entering any questionable law enforcement situation (TSA, walking near a protest, traveling internationally) I always switch my phone to not use TouchID. Say what you will.
grillvogel 11y ago
it's probably pretty safe to assume google did the opposite
lwhalen 11y ago
What this says to me is that the current iPhone encryption is able to be broken by Apple. Note: "[the FBI is asking us to] make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation." I interpret that as there is already a backdoor, but one that is controlled by Apple. If that is the case, the gov't is asking for dual control of that pre-existing backdoor in addition to Apple. If I encrypt a message with a public key, and Phil Zimmerman can decrypt it (in addition to the holder of the private half of that public key), then there's a backdoor in PGP, regardless of who owns/knows about it. The only secure system is one where the data is well and truly unrecoverable if the private key is gone, missing, or unavailable/unwilling to be applied by the owner.

by epaga 11y ago

Oletros 11y ago

> Huge props to Apple - here's hoping against hope that Google, Facebook, and Amazon get behind this. Why against hope?

rincebrain 11y ago
It's an idiom [1]. [1] - http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hope+against+hope http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hope+against+hope
- Oletros 11y ago
  I know that it is an idiom, I asking why he has no hope
  - konradb 11y ago
    From the link that was posted in reply to you, 'hope against hope' means 'to have hope even when the situation appears to be hopeless'. Which means he does have hope, even though the situation appears to be hopeless.
    - Oletros 11y ago
      Yeees, I'm asking why he thinks there is little hope that they will stand
      - konradb 11y ago
        Sorry, misinterpreted you, in over-literal mind mode right now!
        Oletros 11y ago
        No problem
    - div 11y ago
      I think Oletros understands that perfectly, but is wondering why OP feels that the situation appears to be hopeless.
    - jcrites 11y ago
      Why is the situation hopeless? Google, for example, has been undertaking efforts for years to improve security on the Internet, in part for the purpose of protecting privacy. Seven days ago they were featured in an article about how they're going to warn users of Gmail whose incoming emails are not protected by SSL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11067050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11067050 - this is part of their Safer Email initiative. Some time ago they released a Transparency Report as part of that initiative describing which senders to/from Gmail support encryption: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/saferemail/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/saferemail/ - and that's not to mention their efforts promoting HTTPS. I see these efforts as Google going far out of its way to support privacy and security on the web.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- Oletros 11y ago
  You should read your link, because this is not what it says
  - natch 11y ago
    You're right, the headline is sensationalizing his actual words. I'm retracting that comment.
rodgerd 11y ago
When a US senator expressed upset with Wikileaks, Amazon shut them down. Not even a court order, just a tantrum from a politician. If you really think Amazon aren't cheerfully inviting the US government into their datacentres, you haven't been paying attention.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rms_returns 11y ago

With Google's Android, this issue will never arise because Android is open source. Any attempt to plant a backdoor will be outright monitored by the community.

firloop 11y ago
Not too sure about this. Keep in mind that in most commercially sold Android phones, closed source, self updating, Google Play Services is installed by the manufacturer with system level privileges. That alone is enough to create a non insignificant back door.
- rms_returns 11y ago
  But you can always root your phone and install Cyanogenmod from scratch, right? Agreed that this is not too trivial right now because of standardization issues, but it could be done if you really care about privacy.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    Not all of CyanogenMod is free software (you still have a bunch of binary blobs, and everyone has to use Google Play Services anyway because every app seems to implicitly require it). Replicant would be a much better alternative if it actually supported anything newer than 2G.
    - ionised 11y ago
      > and everyone has to use Google Play Services anyway This isn't true. You can stick to app repositories like F-Droid and use Raccoon to download Play Store apps via your desktop without using a Google account on your phone.
      - noarchy 11y ago
        It is true that you can get Play Store apps without a Google Account, but the Place Services framework does a lot more than this. Many apps rely upon the framework for certain pieces of functionality from Google's libraries.

legulere 11y ago

Why wold Google and Facebook get behind this? They store their customers data in a way they can access and subsequently have to give it to persecuters when there's a court order

danieldk 11y ago
If government agencies has unfettered access to data, it undermines the reputation of these companies. For instance, in Europe, many companies and organisations are likely even more hesitant to use Google's services since the Snowden leaks. This is a large loss of potential revenue. Google has been (even more) proactive about security and encryption since then, since part of their business model relies on trust.
Oletros 11y ago
> Why wold Google and Facebook get behind this? They store their customers data in a way they can access and subsequently have to give it to persecuters when there's a court order Exactly like Apple. Or do you think that the emails in iCloud are not given to the prosecutors?
- legulere 11y ago
  Yes exactly like apple. To quote the link: "When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it." The point I was trying to make is that Google and Facebook have direct access to all the data of their customers, and already provide access to government agencies. Contrary to Apple they don't safely store some data of their costumers safely on the device, which this case is about.
  - Oletros 11y ago
    > The point I was trying to make is that Google and Facebook have direct access to all the data of their customers, and already provide access to government agencies. Contrary to Apple they don't safely store some data of their costumers safely on the device, which this case is about. Your point is wrong regarding Google and smartphones if the smartphone is encrypted

hosay123 11y ago

What it sounds like is they've been asked to prepare a new OS release that allows an unlimited number of attempts to enter the passphrase via some network link. The press release is written to sound like without a software release, it wouldn't be possible to mount this kind of attack, however attacks like this are generally possible regardless of having some specially modified and signed OS image: for example, by cutting power to the hardware precisely when it is clear a password was incorrect, before the hardware has time to implement any destructive actions. Attacks like this have been used against SIM cards since the 90s. I'm ambivalent regarding Apple's stance. In principle they are doing the right thing, but in practice, it seems they may be kicking up a whole lot of fuss over a relatively minor issue (with the exception that providing an easy means to brute force a phone to the authorities sets a horrible precedent). As for creating a universal backdoor, it seems highly unlikely they couldn't produce a signed OS / coprocessor firmware image that wasn't locked to one of the various serial numbers associated with this particular device edit: as mentioned below, this order entirely originates with Apple's use of DRM to prevent software modification. Had users actual control over the devices they own the FBI wouldn't need to request a signed firmware in the first place. Please think twice about what Apple might really be defending here before downvoting

giovannibajo1 11y ago
It used to be possible to do what you describe (cutting power at the right moment) and there were even physical bruteforce devices built to implement this but it's all been hardened in iOS 8 and there are no currently known ways to bruteforce a passcode. Obviously there might theoretically exist a software bug to do so, but there's no information around and it sounds even FBI couldn't find it if it exists
- akavel 11y ago
  Could you elaborate on how's that prevented? I'm quite curious. [Or did someone already explain in some other post somewhere in this thread?] edit: self-answer: the following post seems to have an answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11115579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11115579, although it seems to describe a newer device than the one in the case; but I was interested in how such protection is possible at all, so that seems to answer it for me.

ank_the_elder 11y ago

Absolutely. I'm quite amazed they had the guts to go through with this and I applaud it. I will support them with my dollars as much as possible.

djkslgjeklas 11y ago
Talk is cheap and these internet posts - from Tim Cooke, you, and me - are just talk. The security of this nation depends on Apple (and Google et. seq.) supporting us with its dollars as much as possible. And I'm not optimistic that the stockholders care about anything more than doing the opposite.
- Umn44 11y ago
  You are correct... see this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY Brezinski at a press conference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g Major powers, and imposing control over the awakened masses. https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397 https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397
- tobylane 11y ago
  Some people already complain that the iPhone is too expensive, especially compared to non-equal Android phones. Not enough people complain about any company not fighting for their user's security. Talk is all we need so far. Publicly saying no to the FBI is a step rarely taken.
- sjwright 11y ago
  Talk is not cheap when you have to back up such talk with a substantial legal defence. And any stockholder with an ounce of intelligence will understand that Apple's choices here are both morally right and effective marketing. As the information age matures, privacy is becoming a valuable asset, and Apple is starting to gain a positive reputation in this space.
  - 11y ago

bambax 11y ago

I don't see how this "reassuring"; to me it's rather very confusing (as mentioned in many other comments). If Apple could in fact write a software backdoor, doesn't it mean that the backdoor exists, at least potentially? And how can one be sure that Apple is the only company able to build that door? At the very least, couldn't the right Apple engineer be either bribed or forced (by terrorists or the government) to build it? "Impossible" should mean "impossible", not "not yet done, but possible".

elmigranto 11y ago
Not possible without backing it into iOS with some update that FBI is claiming will be used on one particular phone in this particular case. Apple reasons that there is no way to guarantee no one will take the same update and apply it to other iOS devices. Or government taking this a step further by making Apple to build that into future update for the whole user base.
epaga 11y ago
What it means is that the best the FBI can come up with is "Make a way for us to brute force attack the passphrase." And brute force attack is worthless for a strong enough passphrase. That's what is reassuring. Not to mention that this is for the iPhone 5c. As other comments have mentioned, newer iPhones have the hardware-based Secure Enclave which add to the difficulty of breaking into the phone. https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  It could also be that the FBI has already obtained the info, or can obtain the info through illegal means and simply want to use the issue to force legislative and policy changes or public opinion changes in their favor, and or just want to legitimize their having the information.
- andreyvit 11y ago
  My reading of that PDF is that Secure Enclave software can be updated too, it simply does an independent verification of the Apple's digital signature. So while the Secure Enclave enforces the delay between brute force attempts, Apple could still release an update that removes that delay.

threatofrain 11y ago

I'm afraid I'm too skeptical to get the same assurances as you. Apple accuses the FBI of playing language games with the term "backdoor", but I think Apple has done the same. The fact that they can push weak OS updates to a locked phone is the backdoor. This means that they can already comply with the court order, and they likely will. This letter covers them from PR damage.

hardlianotion 11y ago
This is not apparent from the article. Where could I find out about this ability?
- forgotpwtomain 11y ago
  If such an ability doesn't exist than how does this potential threat follow? (article) > But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. I am also missing a key part of the technical details involved in this this situation.
em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
Freedom from forced update is one of Stallman's motivations for free software. Just one terrorist attack + PR letter to customer + forced update away from loosing encryption on your phone.
- kec 11y ago
  On the other hand, if iOS were open source / the iPhone was able to run unsigned code there would be nothing stopping the FBI from just doing what they've asked apple to do themselves (assuming it's actually technically possible).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - cmurf 11y ago

jkn 11y ago

Does Apple do an amazing job protecting their users' privacy? Yes! But frankly in this case I find the FBI makes more sense than Apple. Apple says: All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission As I understand, Apple complains about the introduction of this new threat model: 1. criminal steals someone's iPhone, 2. gets hold of a special iOS version that Apple keeps internally to assist the government, 3. pushes the OS update to the iPhone by themselves, 4. uses some tool to automate brute-forcing the user passcode At least that's what I get from these excerpts: Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer. Now how serious is this threat? And how useful is it to have the FBI be able to look into a phone when they have a warrant? Does the balance between the right to privacy and the need to assist criminal investigation really tilt towards privacy in this specific case? Meanwhile there are serious threats that do affect a lot of users in practice, where Apple does a good job but could do better still such as: - Remote code execution on iOS (6 vulnerabilities in 2016 so far[1]) - Phishing, brute force and social engineering attacks (the improved two-factor authentication is not yet available to everyone[2]) Am I wrong in thinking that users are way more likely to be affected by these threats except when the government has a warrant? If Apple is actually worried about the FBI getting access to the modified iOS version, they should focus their complaint on that and propose to do the whole data extraction in-house. [1] http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-49/product_id-15556/year-2016/opec-1/Apple-Iphone-Os.html http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-49/pr... [2] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204915 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204915

datashovel 11y ago
I think the question is less about whether or not a "correct / valid use" of this new technology is acceptable. The problem is that it's impossible (once it exists) to guarantee it won't be used in malicious ways.

tosseraccount 11y ago

Let's get behind Google, Facebook and Amazon to protect our privacy?

justin_oaks 11y ago
Let's get behind Google, Facebook, and Amazon in their desire to not to hand over our data to the government. Even with as much data as each of them has, it's still better that the data isn't given to yet another party (the government, or each other).
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  Is it "our" data? Or is it their data? You don't think they share this with their business partners?

SoMuchToGrok 11y ago

Like you, I appreciate the sentiment - happy to hear Apple speaking up. However this shouldn't change how we use Apple products. I operate under the implication that the device is compromised from the factory. Closed source software cannot be trusted, good faith is not enough.

fixermark 11y ago
I can't disagree with your point of view; I merely point out that a world where everyone who wants a secure smartphone needs to own their own smartphone factory isn't a very practical world.
- em3rgent0rdr 11y ago
  Only needs to have access to software source code, and presumably a way to verify the binaries match. Not an entire factory.
  - HappyTypist 11y ago
    They also need to verify the hardware does what it's supposed to do, and the CPU doesn't have secret opcodes.
ufmace 11y ago
Considering how many massive, gaping security flaws have been found in Open Source software in the last year or so alone that have been in place for years or decades, I think we can say that open source software cannot be trusted either.
- SoMuchToGrok 11y ago
  Open source software can be trusted as much as we can trust ourselves - and that's as good as trust gets. I'll take that any day over trusting one party with a vested interest in making money.

tossaway1 11y ago

What do you want thone other companies to get behind? They don't manufacture phones like Apple does, right...? Note that this letter says: "When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it." Seels like that detail is getting very little attention in this announcement. Really? If the FYI requests any data, they hand it over...?

creshal 11y ago
Goole makes Android; Amazon makes FireOS. No idea what't the deal with Facebook is. > Really? If the FYI requests any data, they hand it over...? They have to, there's no legal wiggle room here. Creating backdoors OTOH seems to be sufficiently legally questionable that Apple can risk noncompliance. (Of course, Apple could not accumulate all that data in the first place, but that would be silly, obviously. Now please sync your wifi passwords to iCloud.)
dr_zoidberg 11y ago
Would you complain about Apple handing in information to solve the murder of a loved one? Why is it always the "bad government" argument? It's not that it doesn't happen, but usually those requests are aimed towards more "mundane" cases. For example, I have friends who work in law (though not in the US), and the number 1 data request -which is revised by a judge, and only then given by companies- are call logs from telephones (just from/to, date, time, duration, nothing fancy). And this are extremely helpful and information rich, if you know how to use them.
- fixermark 11y ago
  Utilitarian philosophy argument. The benefit gained by solving one murdered loved-one case is badly offset by the loss accrued to everyone by no longer having the security protections they expected. This specific case, in fact, is pretty close to "murder of a loved one;" the phone's owner killed people, and the FBI wants to find out if they were part of a bigger plot.
- tossaway1 11y ago
  I'm all for supporting law enforcement efforts, but the wording seemed to imply that Apple hands over any requested info to the FBI, which seems excessive. But I was mainly pointing out that quote because it wasn't clear what lesson the parent commenter wanted Google, Facebook, and Amazon to be learning from Apple. I would have guessed it'd have something to do with protection of user data, but the letter says they turn over any user data they have!

ChrisArgyle 11y ago

Isn't it odd that this press release spends so much time discussing encryption? Neither the FBI nor Apple will be touching any encryption functions of the device. It seems the primary aim of this statement is to prevent rumors that would spook Apple users into thinking their data is fair game

ryanackley 11y ago

The government wants Apple to disable the auto-erase after so many unlock attempts. Apple argues in this letter that with modern computing power, this amounts to a backdoor. The details of the gov't request are in another story on the HN front page https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160216/17393733617/no-judge-did-not-just-order-apple-to-break-encryption-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone-to-create-new-backdoor.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160216/17393733617/no-ju...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jandrese 11y ago
The encryption key used on the root filesystem is too hard to brute force. It's not based on some crappy password that a human created, it's some hash value stored in the hardware. In a scenario like that it is easy to create a key that would require all of the computers working till the heat death of the universe to crack.
- sre_ops 11y ago
  This phone does not have SE. It is purely software and Apple can defeat it easily. This is the exact attack vector that was addressed by Apple in the phones with SE.
- dkonofalski 11y ago
  They're not trying to brute-force the encryption key. They're attempting to brute-force the PIN lock on the phone. Currently they can't because the settings on the phone cause a timeout after each unsuccessful login, the phone wipes after 10 failed attempts, and the PIN cannot be accepted from anywhere except the device display. These are the security functions that the FBI wants Apple to remove. They want to be able to hook up a computer via the lightning cable to brute-force the PIN and give them access to the phone's contents.

bobby_9x 11y ago

Google worked with the NSA and Facebook not only worked with the NSA, but now has ties to China and the Chinese government (which have the most advanced spying and censoring Internet technology around). So, I'm doubtful.

ChuckMcM 11y ago

".. what this means is that even Apple can't break into an iPhone with a secure passphrase (10+ characters) and disabled Touch ID - which is hackable with a bit of effort to get your fingerprint." That is not exactly true. They wrote the OS, they designed the phone, they know where the JTAG connectors are. Cracking the phone apart and putting is logic board up on a debugger would likely enable them to bypass security. From what I understand Tim is doing, and I greatly admire, is trying to avoid a judicial requirement that they be able to do this on demand. The so called "back door" requirement, because he knows, as others do, that such a feature would be used by more than the intended audience, and for more than the intended uses, to the detriment of Apple's users. What I really find amazing is that I was at a talk hosted by the East-West Institute where the Air Force General of the new cyber command (whose name escapes me) complained that "we" (silicon valley) had let the government down by not writing strong enough crypto to keep our adversaries out. I remarked that it was the ITARS regulation and the Commerce department at the behest of the NSA which had tied our hands in that regard, and that with a free reign we would have, and could do, much better. Whit Diffie was there and also made the same point with them. And now, here we are 10 years later, and we "fixed" it, and now its our fault that they can't break into this stuff? Guess what? Our adversaries can't either! The right to privacy, and the right of companies to secure that right with technology for their customers, is a very important topic and deserves the attention. I am really glad that one of the most valuable companies in the world is drawing a bright line in the sand. So I really support Tim's position on this one.

jessedhillon 11y ago
> That is not exactly true. They wrote the OS, they designed the phone, they know where the JTAG connectors are. Cracking the phone apart and putting is logic board up on a debugger would likely enable them to bypass security. Is this true? That would have to mean that either the passphrase is stored on the device or that the data is not encrypted at rest. Neither of these sound likely, frankly
- shdon 11y ago
  It doesn't have to mean any of that. As long as the 10 mistakes limit is enforced in software or in a separate chip that can be replaced without replacing the actual encryption key, it can be bypassed. Then it is a simple matter of simply brute-forcing the pin code. Since these are usually 4 digits, there's only 10000 possibilities, which is laughable to a brute force attacked.

FIX_IT 11y ago

When I forgot the password for my iPhone I tried untill it said "connect to ITunes" when I connected to iTunes nothing happened so I clicked restore realised I had not backed up my iPhone so I clicked backup hoping that it would backup but it said that I needed to sign in this then relied the boundary of not letting me type the password in or holding me back. So I have created a program that repeatedly does that. (There are no need for fancy backdoors)

bdrool 11y ago

> here's hoping against hope that Google, Facebook, and Amazon get behind this I would assume that Google, Facebook, and Amazon are already sending every single keystroke we type straight to all the three letter agencies pretty much in real time. (I also assume the same about Apple, so I'm not sure what to make of this open letter.)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

beloch 11y ago

Important to remember: Anyone who has your phone also has an object covered in your finger prints. Don't rely on Touch ID for actual security.

r00fus 11y ago
Important to remember: All iPhones since the 3GS have oleophobic surface coating (which combined with cloth pockets means the screen stays relatively clean). Also important to remember, fingerprints on a random surface are VERY hard to copy onto latex milk or PCB substrate. Please continue to think

hobarrera 11y ago

> Huge props to Apple They may be doing it for people right to privacy, but don't forget they might also be doing this because their image would become tainted irrevocably if they complied with this. Trust in Apple devices would be shattered (across those who currently trust Apple).

adam12 11y ago

What puzzles me is why the government didn't impose a gag order like they sometimes do in cases like this.

sjwright 11y ago
Because a gag order would have to be absolutely legally watertight, which is likely impossible in this case.

skewart 11y ago

"...and disabled Touch ID - which is hackable with a bit of effort to get your fingerprint." As long as we're on the topic of encryption, phones, and law enforcement it's worth keeping in mind that in the US at least courts can compel you to unlock your phone with Touch ID, even though they can't compel you to give them a password. Communicating a password is considered speech, so self-incriminating speech is protected by the fifth amendment. Physically holding your finger to a device is not considered speech and so it's not protected. I think this is an interesting, and perhaps underappreciated, aspect of a shift from passwords to biometrics for verifying identity. It would shift the power dynamic between civilians and government a bit - here in the US at least. Of course, hopefully no one is in a situation where they need to protect themselves against over-reaching or unjust government officials any time soon. http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/31/court-rules-touch-id-is-not-protected-by-the-fifth-amendment-bu/ http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/31/court-rules-touch-id-is-n...

spanktar 11y ago
When entering any questionable law enforcement situation (TSA, walking near a protest, traveling internationally) I always switch my phone to not use TouchID. Say what you will.

grillvogel 11y ago

it's probably pretty safe to assume google did the opposite

lwhalen 11y ago

What this says to me is that the current iPhone encryption is able to be broken by Apple. Note: "[the FBI is asking us to] make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation." I interpret that as there is already a backdoor, but one that is controlled by Apple. If that is the case, the gov't is asking for dual control of that pre-existing backdoor in addition to Apple. If I encrypt a message with a public key, and Phil Zimmerman can decrypt it (in addition to the holder of the private half of that public key), then there's a backdoor in PGP, regardless of who owns/knows about it. The only secure system is one where the data is well and truly unrecoverable if the private key is gone, missing, or unavailable/unwilling to be applied by the owner.