4 ms·

>"hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this case." Only hundreds? It's not "unlocking" anyway, it's exposing the phones to an opportu

by exodust 11y ago

>"hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this case." Only hundreds? It's not "unlocking" anyway, it's exposing the phones to an opportunity of cracking them open. A non-trivial time-consuming task, hardly the domain of opportunistic hackers with stolen iPhones. >"government-ordered backdoor." "Backdoor" is not what is being asked for, so they shouldn't use the word "backdoor". Encryption is not under threat by this request. If raw computing power can break the encryption, then Apple should improve their encryption. Use more bits, more salt or whatever. Make it so a computer needs 50 years to crack a password, even with electronic brute force. Then it wouldn't matter whether the self-destruct kicked in or not. And no mention of the compromise offer for Apple to keep the alternative OS on their premises and destroy it after. Apple are trying just a bit too hard to "not put customers at risk". The risk is almost zero. If Apple's security was as good as they claim, then not even Apple, no matter what they did to help, could crack the phone. That's where we want to be. At the point where it simply doesn't matter what the FBI asks for, the phone is uncrackable. Sounds to me like we're not there yet. Apple helping crack this phone will help us get there. And that's why I don't agree with Apple's position here. Let's see this phone cracked open, and then evolve the security to a point where a similar request would be impossible to achieve no matter what Apple or anyone did.

kstenerud 11y ago
> It's not "unlocking" anyway, it's exposing the phones to an opportunity of cracking them open. A non-trivial time-consuming task, hardly the domain of opportunistic hackers with stolen iPhones. Semantic nit picking aside, it takes a trivial amount of time for a computer electronically submitting passwords to crack a 4 digit code. > "Backdoor" is not what is being asked for, so they shouldn't use the word "backdoor". More semantic nit picking. They're asking for Apple to write software to disable the very security features that make the 4 digit passcode secure. > Make it so a computer needs 50 years to crack a password, even with electronic brute force. Then it wouldn't matter whether the self-destruct kicked in or not. Says the armchair security expert. > Apple helping crack this phone will help us get there. No, it won't. All it will do is open a new security hole where one didn't exist previously.
- exodust 11y ago
  Are you suggesting a 4 digit passcode is secure? News flash: it's not. Any 4 digit passcode is insecure by its own nature. It's security depends on another unrelated system. This is an inherent weakness. If you're stamping your foot demanding that your 4 digit passcode not be compromised by the FBI or anyone else, may I suggest a smarter option: choose a longer passcode. Choose 11 digits and then it doesn't matter if someone at Apple or FBI or Mr Robot goes bananas and decides to write some software that compromises your phone's passcode retry limit. 11 digits is not trivial to crack via electronic means. If you're relying on a combination of a 4 digit passcode and faith in your phone's manufacturer that the retry and self-destruct methods can't be hacked, well that's your own irresponsible position. Keep it if you like, but it sounds like an Apple passcode fanboy party waiting to be crashed. As long as encryption remains solid without back doors, that's all that matters. The rest is a matter for Apple to choose whether to cooperate with an investigation into serious crime. They choose not to, citing "back doors" and "protecting users". No surprises there.

by exodust 11y ago

kstenerud 11y ago

> It's not "unlocking" anyway, it's exposing the phones to an opportunity of cracking them open. A non-trivial time-consuming task, hardly the domain of opportunistic hackers with stolen iPhones. Semantic nit picking aside, it takes a trivial amount of time for a computer electronically submitting passwords to crack a 4 digit code. > "Backdoor" is not what is being asked for, so they shouldn't use the word "backdoor". More semantic nit picking. They're asking for Apple to write software to disable the very security features that make the 4 digit passcode secure. > Make it so a computer needs 50 years to crack a password, even with electronic brute force. Then it wouldn't matter whether the self-destruct kicked in or not. Says the armchair security expert. > Apple helping crack this phone will help us get there. No, it won't. All it will do is open a new security hole where one didn't exist previously.

exodust 11y ago
Are you suggesting a 4 digit passcode is secure? News flash: it's not. Any 4 digit passcode is insecure by its own nature. It's security depends on another unrelated system. This is an inherent weakness. If you're stamping your foot demanding that your 4 digit passcode not be compromised by the FBI or anyone else, may I suggest a smarter option: choose a longer passcode. Choose 11 digits and then it doesn't matter if someone at Apple or FBI or Mr Robot goes bananas and decides to write some software that compromises your phone's passcode retry limit. 11 digits is not trivial to crack via electronic means. If you're relying on a combination of a 4 digit passcode and faith in your phone's manufacturer that the retry and self-destruct methods can't be hacked, well that's your own irresponsible position. Keep it if you like, but it sounds like an Apple passcode fanboy party waiting to be crashed. As long as encryption remains solid without back doors, that's all that matters. The rest is a matter for Apple to choose whether to cooperate with an investigation into serious crime. They choose not to, citing "back doors" and "protecting users". No surprises there.