17 ms·

Can somebody explain to me why Apple couldn't create this exploited OS and restrict it to only run on the specific device in question? If that's the case, then

Can somebody explain to me why Apple couldn't create this exploited OS and restrict it to only run on the specific device in question? If that's the case, then they could post the source code on Github and it wouldn't make any difference. Modifying the code to remove the device restrictions would invalidate the signature and any iPhone would refuse to run it. Isn't that the whole point of code signing? I'm finding it hard to see how Apple's stance is anything other than meaningless grandstanding. Since the vulnerability already exists, the security of similar iPhones is currently reliant on the security of Apple's private signing key. After releasing this exploited OS, the security of similar iPhones would still rely on the security of Apple's private signing key. Nothing at all would change, it's Apple's fault for allowing this vulnerability to be there in the first place. Where am I wrong on this? I've been hoping Apple would answer this question for me but instead I've just gotten more hyperbole.

AlexanderRB 11y ago
There isn't any fool proof way to single out this device from any other. There are certainly ways they could try and build something that relied on checking the serial number, or something of the like reported by the hardware. But then someone could just build a hardware level hack, to make any other device report it's serial number as if it was this phone.
- noelsusman 11y ago
  Surely there must be a way to securely identify an iPhone by more than just its serial number. If that's not the case then isn't that a security issue on its own?
  - vehementi 11y ago
    Not if nothing really relies on that serial number, right?
Pyxl101 11y ago
They probably could build a version of the OS that worked only for single devices. In the latest court case about San Bernadino, that's what the FBI is asking for. There's a unique device id, as I understand it, that the OS could detect. I believe that Apple is opposing it on principle, and out of concern of the precedent that it would set. Once it's been done once, the fact that it's been done will significantly lower the bar for it to be done in other circumstances.
- varenc 11y ago
  That interpretation doesn't seem to line up with what apple stated. > "Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control." The part about being able to guarantee such control seems to indicate that future requests may not require Apple's involvement.
  - empressplay 11y ago
    FYI, just because Apple said it doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      The CEO made a public statement. Any number of his employees or security experts could call him out if he were lying. You think all computer security experts are in cahoots on this? Cook could have lied and said building a special OS was impossible. But he didn't because he knows someone will find out. When you're facing a subpoena, you don't knowingly lie.
      - XorNot 11y ago
        No but you can get away with pretending to be an idiot. Or forgetful.
        11y ago
aljones 11y ago
Apple has explicitly stated they can do what is asked at every opportunity. You ever been responsible for writing secure software? It isn't easy. Locking it down to a single device is in principle possible. No one wants to be responsible for really doing it though if they can avoid it. Especially not when it is obvious this is not a one time thing. Not at all. You think every device manufacturer can do it without error too? There will be a lot of secret cracking tools if this gets started.
- tlrobinson 11y ago
  Is it really that hard? Just make the very first thing executed a check for the specific device ID and crash immediately if it doesn't match. Since the code is signed the check can't be removed or changed.
  - chopin 11y ago
    How would you do the check? One must ensure that the ID can't be spoofed on the way to the code. This would only be the case with very special hardware. AFAIK this isn't the case here.
    - tlrobinson 11y ago
      The UID is fused into the processor itself: https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/UID_key https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/UID_key.
wfo 11y ago
There is a way in but it's a lot of work. They have to create a new weird custom build of an OS with modifications and try to ensure it only works on a specific device (and that the code that makes it work on one specific device and not others can't be circumvented). To do it once? Sure. For San Bernadino terroists? Sure. But there are hordes of prosecutors across the country who have already reported in that they have stacks of warrants for iPhones ready to go, requesting a special build, engineer time, and a complicated procedure for every single one the moment the precedent is established. So the real question is: Can the FBI compel apple to create a "department of helping the FBI hack into iPhones?"
- noelsusman 11y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong but Apple would be allowed to charge law enforcement a reasonable fee for the service, right?

AlexanderRB 11y ago

There isn't any fool proof way to single out this device from any other. There are certainly ways they could try and build something that relied on checking the serial number, or something of the like reported by the hardware. But then someone could just build a hardware level hack, to make any other device report it's serial number as if it was this phone.

noelsusman 11y ago
Surely there must be a way to securely identify an iPhone by more than just its serial number. If that's not the case then isn't that a security issue on its own?
- vehementi 11y ago
  Not if nothing really relies on that serial number, right?

Pyxl101 11y ago

They probably could build a version of the OS that worked only for single devices. In the latest court case about San Bernadino, that's what the FBI is asking for. There's a unique device id, as I understand it, that the OS could detect. I believe that Apple is opposing it on principle, and out of concern of the precedent that it would set. Once it's been done once, the fact that it's been done will significantly lower the bar for it to be done in other circumstances.

varenc 11y ago
That interpretation doesn't seem to line up with what apple stated. > "Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control." The part about being able to guarantee such control seems to indicate that future requests may not require Apple's involvement.
- empressplay 11y ago
  FYI, just because Apple said it doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    The CEO made a public statement. Any number of his employees or security experts could call him out if he were lying. You think all computer security experts are in cahoots on this? Cook could have lied and said building a special OS was impossible. But he didn't because he knows someone will find out. When you're facing a subpoena, you don't knowingly lie.
    - XorNot 11y ago
      No but you can get away with pretending to be an idiot. Or forgetful.
      - 11y ago

aljones 11y ago

Apple has explicitly stated they can do what is asked at every opportunity. You ever been responsible for writing secure software? It isn't easy. Locking it down to a single device is in principle possible. No one wants to be responsible for really doing it though if they can avoid it. Especially not when it is obvious this is not a one time thing. Not at all. You think every device manufacturer can do it without error too? There will be a lot of secret cracking tools if this gets started.

tlrobinson 11y ago
Is it really that hard? Just make the very first thing executed a check for the specific device ID and crash immediately if it doesn't match. Since the code is signed the check can't be removed or changed.
- chopin 11y ago
  How would you do the check? One must ensure that the ID can't be spoofed on the way to the code. This would only be the case with very special hardware. AFAIK this isn't the case here.
  - tlrobinson 11y ago
    The UID is fused into the processor itself: https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/UID_key https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/UID_key.

wfo 11y ago

There is a way in but it's a lot of work. They have to create a new weird custom build of an OS with modifications and try to ensure it only works on a specific device (and that the code that makes it work on one specific device and not others can't be circumvented). To do it once? Sure. For San Bernadino terroists? Sure. But there are hordes of prosecutors across the country who have already reported in that they have stacks of warrants for iPhones ready to go, requesting a special build, engineer time, and a complicated procedure for every single one the moment the precedent is established. So the real question is: Can the FBI compel apple to create a "department of helping the FBI hack into iPhones?"

noelsusman 11y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but Apple would be allowed to charge law enforcement a reasonable fee for the service, right?