6 ms·

> maybe it's time to hand this over before law enforcement wants even more which will doubtless pave the way for mass surveillance of devices. The FBI is alrea

> maybe it's time to hand this over before law enforcement wants even more which will doubtless pave the way for mass surveillance of devices. The FBI is already paving that way with this case. They don't overly care about access to this particular iPhone. They're taking this case through the courts so that they can establish a precedent that allows them to force manufacturer cooperation to unlock any phone. Edit: If they really cared about access to this individual phone, they wouldn't be going through the courts to get it; they'd be talking to the NSA TAO or other LEO with advanced forensic capability. As several people have pointed out, this iPhone 5C does not have a Secure Enclave and probably does not present a significant challenge to forensically analyze, to people that know what they're doing. They're going through the courts on this so they can get carte blanche to access iPhones 5S and above, which no LEO currently has capabilities to inspect. Further edit: This is Farook's work phone. His main, personal phone was found destroyed in a dumpster near the site of the attacks. I find it incredibly unlikely the FBI really cares much about the contents of this individual phone, they just want a high-profile test case to expand their surveillance capabilities.

delroth 11y ago
Maybe that would force manufacturers to be in a position where they can truthfully say "we can't do that". I'd prefer that to the current situation where Apple basically has a backdoor they're just trying to keep for themselves.
- zaphoyd 11y ago
  As the original article mentions, it sounds like Apple has already engineered a situation where they can't get into their own phones. This Apple only backdoor option exists only in equipment that predates the secure enclave hardware (such as the phone in this case).
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    They always can. Microcode updates come to mind. While apple have the ability to keep their ecosystems locked, they also have the capability to unlock them. Probably not easy and not on mass scale. It may even need to have to see inside the silicone itself. Which is expensive and hard. But as long as the keys are on the device or in possession of apple - they can be extracted.
    - scarface74 11y ago
      The private keys are not in the possession of Apple though. The key is in the secure enclave.
      - chillacy 11y ago
        Worse case, you disassemble the die and read the bits off with an electron microscope. It's still possible, just expensive, painful, and maybe dangerous if you damage the chip.
  - delroth 11y ago
    Except that there is no proof of this. It was stated as false by John Kelley, an ex Embedded Security engineer at Apple: https://twitter.com/JohnHedge/status/699882614212075520 https://twitter.com/JohnHedge/status/699882614212075520 For all we know so far, Apple could still provide a signed firmware bypassing the bruteforcing delay implemented by the Secure Enclave.
    - st3v3r 11y ago
      Such a thing does not currently exist, though. They would have to develop one.
    - jarin 11y ago
      The only way to bypass the brute forcing delay would be to increase computing power, since it's a function of the encryption method used. It basically goes through a number of iterations chosen to make it take about 80 ms per attempt.
Amezarak 11y ago
> They don't overly care about access to this particular iPhone. They're taking this case through the courts so that they can establish a precedent that allows them to force manufacturer cooperation to unlock any phone. This is an analysis, not an objective and demonstrable fact. I could just as well argue that yes, the FBI really does care a lot about this particular iPhone, and that's why the asked-for update is to be keyed to this iPhone and only this iPhone. At the same time, even assuming that is true, we're talking about the FBI going through a legal process, reviewed by a judge, to get the data off one phone at a time. If that's how it works every time, I don't see a problem; that is how the system is supposed to work. I am kind of baffled as to why we're cheerleading the fact that Apple is refusing to perform what appears to be a perfectly reasonable request that is being made in accordance with the law. If you are operating under the presumption that the government is always a bad-faith actor, then we have much, much bigger problems. Also, apparently this 'precedent' has already been set; according to a link in the article, Apple had previously offered custom firmware images to law enforcement after a court order that bypassed the lock screen on earlier iPhones. http://www.cnet.com/news/how-apple-and-google-help-police-bypass-iphone-android-lock-screens/ http://www.cnet.com/news/how-apple-and-google-help-police-by...
- chishaku 11y ago
  > This is an analysis, not an objective and demonstrable fact. No. You don't have to assume that law enforcement or intelligence agencies are bad faith actors to see they are constantly seeking to expand their powers. http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/235910-fbis-hacking-request-gets-initial-approval http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/235910-fbis-hacking-... https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-fbi-using-drones-2006-20130926-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-fbi-using-d... https://epic.org/foia/fbi/lpr/ https://epic.org/foia/fbi/lpr/
  - themartorana 11y ago
    Also we don't have to assume it because we know it for a fact - they are bad faith actors.
venomsnake 11y ago
As long as there is no law that mandates that a phone must be unlockable to be sold in US (which probably FCC has authority to insist for) - if there is technical capability for a device to be unlocked - it is manufacturers' fault and they must comply. Apple chose themselves to have total control over the device, signing and ecosystem - now it backfires.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

delroth 11y ago

Maybe that would force manufacturers to be in a position where they can truthfully say "we can't do that". I'd prefer that to the current situation where Apple basically has a backdoor they're just trying to keep for themselves.

zaphoyd 11y ago
As the original article mentions, it sounds like Apple has already engineered a situation where they can't get into their own phones. This Apple only backdoor option exists only in equipment that predates the secure enclave hardware (such as the phone in this case).
- venomsnake 11y ago
  They always can. Microcode updates come to mind. While apple have the ability to keep their ecosystems locked, they also have the capability to unlock them. Probably not easy and not on mass scale. It may even need to have to see inside the silicone itself. Which is expensive and hard. But as long as the keys are on the device or in possession of apple - they can be extracted.
  - scarface74 11y ago
    The private keys are not in the possession of Apple though. The key is in the secure enclave.
    - chillacy 11y ago
      Worse case, you disassemble the die and read the bits off with an electron microscope. It's still possible, just expensive, painful, and maybe dangerous if you damage the chip.
- delroth 11y ago
  Except that there is no proof of this. It was stated as false by John Kelley, an ex Embedded Security engineer at Apple: https://twitter.com/JohnHedge/status/699882614212075520 https://twitter.com/JohnHedge/status/699882614212075520 For all we know so far, Apple could still provide a signed firmware bypassing the bruteforcing delay implemented by the Secure Enclave.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    Such a thing does not currently exist, though. They would have to develop one.
  - jarin 11y ago
    The only way to bypass the brute forcing delay would be to increase computing power, since it's a function of the encryption method used. It basically goes through a number of iterations chosen to make it take about 80 ms per attempt.

Amezarak 11y ago

> They don't overly care about access to this particular iPhone. They're taking this case through the courts so that they can establish a precedent that allows them to force manufacturer cooperation to unlock any phone. This is an analysis, not an objective and demonstrable fact. I could just as well argue that yes, the FBI really does care a lot about this particular iPhone, and that's why the asked-for update is to be keyed to this iPhone and only this iPhone. At the same time, even assuming that is true, we're talking about the FBI going through a legal process, reviewed by a judge, to get the data off one phone at a time. If that's how it works every time, I don't see a problem; that is how the system is supposed to work. I am kind of baffled as to why we're cheerleading the fact that Apple is refusing to perform what appears to be a perfectly reasonable request that is being made in accordance with the law. If you are operating under the presumption that the government is always a bad-faith actor, then we have much, much bigger problems. Also, apparently this 'precedent' has already been set; according to a link in the article, Apple had previously offered custom firmware images to law enforcement after a court order that bypassed the lock screen on earlier iPhones. http://www.cnet.com/news/how-apple-and-google-help-police-bypass-iphone-android-lock-screens/ http://www.cnet.com/news/how-apple-and-google-help-police-by...

chishaku 11y ago
> This is an analysis, not an objective and demonstrable fact. No. You don't have to assume that law enforcement or intelligence agencies are bad faith actors to see they are constantly seeking to expand their powers. http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/235910-fbis-hacking-request-gets-initial-approval http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/235910-fbis-hacking-... https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-fbi-using-drones-2006-20130926-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-fbi-using-d... https://epic.org/foia/fbi/lpr/ https://epic.org/foia/fbi/lpr/
- themartorana 11y ago
  Also we don't have to assume it because we know it for a fact - they are bad faith actors.

venomsnake 11y ago

As long as there is no law that mandates that a phone must be unlockable to be sold in US (which probably FCC has authority to insist for) - if there is technical capability for a device to be unlocked - it is manufacturers' fault and they must comply. Apple chose themselves to have total control over the device, signing and ecosystem - now it backfires.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]