4 ms·

>No, it would not. New custom software has to be developed. Software that can then fall into the wrong hands, from crooks with stolen phones, to nation states.

>No, it would not. New custom software has to be developed. Software that can then fall into the wrong hands, from crooks with stolen phones, to nation states. Only if Apple stupidly wrote a generic firmware that could run on any iPhone and then lost it. That risk is essentially zero. If Apple reasonably complied with the order, it would be as dangerous as any other Apple update, which is to say not dangerous at all. >Seriously, it boggles the mind that they are asking for the security to be weakened, because terrorists. In this case, there is no weakening.

obsurveyor 11y ago
> Only if Apple stupidly wrote a generic firmware that could run on any iPhone and then lost it. That risk is essentially zero. The updates they write now are generic and run on any iPhone. So theoretically any new code, by default, would be as well. They may not even have a way to limit firmware to specific devices without many man hours more of work on top of creating the modifications already being requested.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  > They may not even have a way to limit firmware to specific devices They do. The new firmware may not be distributed, but it should be easy enough to make it such that if it was distributed, it wouldn't change security at all on phones other than the target. For example: function handleWrongPassword() { if (deviceId = 1234) { return; } //do the normal phone stuff, like a delay or wipe } Since the firmware is signed, no phone will run the firmware if you change the hard coded 1234.
  - MajesticHobo 11y ago
    > if (deviceId = 1234) { ... Is that a backdoor within a backdoor? :)
    - vectorjohn 11y ago
      I don't know what you mean... but it's pseudocode for what the FBI asked Apple to do. It's a backdoor that only applies to a single device. Since it must by signed by Apple, it can't itself be backdoored by the FBI or a hacker or anyone else without Apple's consent. Edit: oh, I see what you mean. The single =. But it's pseudocode. That happens to look a lot like Javascript with a bug :)

obsurveyor 11y ago

> Only if Apple stupidly wrote a generic firmware that could run on any iPhone and then lost it. That risk is essentially zero. The updates they write now are generic and run on any iPhone. So theoretically any new code, by default, would be as well. They may not even have a way to limit firmware to specific devices without many man hours more of work on top of creating the modifications already being requested.

vectorjohn 11y ago
> They may not even have a way to limit firmware to specific devices They do. The new firmware may not be distributed, but it should be easy enough to make it such that if it was distributed, it wouldn't change security at all on phones other than the target. For example: function handleWrongPassword() { if (deviceId = 1234) { return; } //do the normal phone stuff, like a delay or wipe } Since the firmware is signed, no phone will run the firmware if you change the hard coded 1234.
- MajesticHobo 11y ago
  > if (deviceId = 1234) { ... Is that a backdoor within a backdoor? :)
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    I don't know what you mean... but it's pseudocode for what the FBI asked Apple to do. It's a backdoor that only applies to a single device. Since it must by signed by Apple, it can't itself be backdoored by the FBI or a hacker or anyone else without Apple's consent. Edit: oh, I see what you mean. The single =. But it's pseudocode. That happens to look a lot like Javascript with a bug :)