9 ms·

Apple VP: The FBI wants to roll back safeguards that keep us ahead of criminals

321 points by ropiku 11y ago

lucio 11y ago
if you can access it, a determined criminal with a $5 wrench can too. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  Not when they're dead, which is the case of syed farook.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Well Tim Cook is alive and well and has Apple signing keys.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  Yes, rubber hose crypt-analysis. One of the reasons that the FBI wants apple to make a new version of the encryption software is that you can set your phone such that after ten attempts, it's wiped. Key erased, data bye bye.
geographomics 11y ago
The backdoor is already present, through Apple's design. The FBI are just requesting to use it.
- TruthSHIFT 11y ago
  What backdoor is that?
  - geographomics 11y ago
    Being able to load arbitrary firmware onto the device without requiring user authentication, so long as it's signed by Apple.
    - mirimir 11y ago
      This is just how Apple does things. Indeed, Apple expects you to trust it more than you trust yourself.
      - newjersey 11y ago
        How can we fix it? Easiest I can think of is wipe storage if updating without user authentication. Any better way?
        mirimir 11y ago
        Who is "we" here? Apple could do that, for sure. In the present contest, I can see why they'd want to. It would be a great move to forestall this sort of attack in future. But "we", as in you and I, cannot easily do this. Because we can't sign stuff as Apple. But maybe it's doable.
        bshep 11y ago
        I think this is where things are headed. I think we will soon see a new version of iOS by Apple with more stringent security (no updates without authentication or information is wiped when you force an update). If this doesn't happen, I would highly suspect there is an NSL (or something similar) involved forbidding it.
      - nihonde 11y ago
        You can vote with your dollars, you know. Feel free to buy devices from those other manufacturers that you trust.
        11y ago
- legulere 11y ago
  If I get it right you're calling update functionality a backdoor?
  - Crito 11y ago
    Whether we want to call it a backdoor or get senselessly pedantic about terminology and call it a "front door", the practical reality is yes; it is that functionality that the FBI is asking Apple to take advantage of.
  - geographomics 11y ago
    The way it is currently implemented, by which Apple can - if in physical possession of the device - unilaterally force new firmware onto it without the consent of the user, yes.
- niels_olson 11y ago
  You misunderstand, or at the very least, misrepresent the situation. The only threat Apple apparently didn't design for is the threat of the most powerful nation on earth overreaching their authority by ordering Apple to write and sign an entire operating system with the express purpose of defeating their own safeguards. Which is next-level crazy.
  - geographomics 11y ago
    Nonetheless, if Apple had designed the update mechanism to require both a signed firmware image, and authentication by the user, then the FBI's request would not be possible. Such a design would also help to mitigate the end-user effects of an insider attack at Apple, where a rogue employee signs malicious firmware, or leaks the signing key to some adversary.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > then the FBI's request would not be possible. While that may be a good design for various practical reasons, the technical properties of Apple's security design are not very relevant. This is a political issue about how far Apple (and eventually, any of us) has to go in creating access for law enforcement. Right now the FBI is being reasonably diplomatic and "asking" (formally, through the court) to create this backdoor. If the situation were as you suggest and no update capability existed, they would simply skip the current step and move on to the next step: forcing Apple to include explicit "lawful intercept" capabilities. It is very important for us to win this earlier stage of the fight, because it will be much harder to fight a law. In case you've forgotten, the traditional telcom industry already lost that fight (CALEA).
    - vdek 11y ago
      This is an iPhone 5c, not a 6/6s. The newer models with the secure enclave chip are more secure.
valine 11y ago
"They have suggested that the safeguards of iOS 7 were good enough and that we should simply go back to the security standards of 2013." This is interesting. Perhaps instead of requesting a custom version of iOS with specific vulnerabilities, the FBI should simply request a signed version of iOS 7.0. They could use existing vulnerabilities to gain access to the phone, without placing an undue burden on Apple.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  I wonder if any keys are wiped, or if the system is capable of downgrading without losing data. (The existing vulnerabilities would be the "cut power after each attempt" one, I assume.)
- kccqzy 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure the many on-device storage formats have changed as new features are introduced. I'm pretty the Notes app in iOS 7 doesn't have the capability of inserting doodles or checklists for example. And the Messages app doesn't support groups with names. FBI doesn't just want an unlocked phone, they want an unlocked phone with data intact, so Apple still needs to write and test a lot of code that performs reverse database migrations, possibly losing information in the process.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    If systems can be technically downgraded without losing data, just making it inaccessible, then they can downgrade, crack the code, then upgrade. I don't know enough to know whether this works. I suspect apps that didn't exist in iOS 7 would have their data deleted, although perhaps this wouldn't happen if it wasn't unlocked (and it would be power-cut as soon as it was cracked).
- msbarnett 11y ago
  No. Among other things, the order the FBI sought requires Apple to build a RAM only version of iOS. Anything that requires reflashing the phone, or that writes log files at boot or alters as much as a single bit on the phone is a no-go from an evidentiary standpoint. Edit: but anyway, iOS 7 has no understanding of the encrypted format introduced in iOS 8
jgalt212 11y ago
There's gotta be a way for Apple to deliver the FBI the data they want without compromising every iPhone user. And if Apple doesn't find a way, you can sure bet the NSA will work harder on its efforts to break the iPhone in the general case.
- SeanBoocock 11y ago
  They can. The arguments are over whether the FBI has the legal standing to compel Apple to create code to do that, and what precedent, legal or otherwise, it sets for similar cases.
  - jgalt212 11y ago
    Can the FBI compel a bank to open a safe deposit box? Can a bank be compelled to identify the names on a numbered account? If they can, then Apple can be compelled to deliver the goods on these terrorists. If not, then no. I really don't see this issue as all that complex.
    - Gracana 11y ago
      A bank doesn't have to spend time developing a product to allow the door to be opened. They just open the door. That's not the case here with Apple.
      - jgalt212 11y ago
        True, but the first time they did blast open a safe deposit box, I bet there was significant time and expense involved. Now it's just a known process.
        chrishas35 11y ago
        Doesn't take a lot of time and expense to figure out how to use a drill...
    - thwarted 11y ago
mirimir 11y ago
Are the FBI "criminals", when they're breaking the law?
- niels_olson 11y ago
  Officers of the government can absolutely be charged with crimes.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Sure. But that doesn't happen very often. Or often enough to make much difference, anyway. Sometimes the NSA feeds information to the FBI, DEA, etc, etc. Recipients do parallel construction. And then lie to courts about it. Which is perjury. How often does that get revealed? Have any prosecutions resulted from widely practiced perjury about obfuscated stingray use? That behavior is common knowledge, no?
    - newjersey 11y ago
      I think it seriously hurts the ability of the NSA to recruit the best and the brightest people (as if the mass surveillance hadn't already hampered things a little too well) if there is a public perception that they are just like IT support of other three letter agencies, mindlessly doing what they order without any discretion. I hear people say we can't have universal healthcare because a decently priced tri care is one of the main draws for joining the military and we'd have to pay more to recruit and retain soldiers if we have universal healthcare. What basic rights do we curtail so it will be easier for the NSA to recruit in the future?
      - oldmanjay 11y ago
        That line of thinking makes about as much sense as "marijuana will never be legal because they can't tax it."
    - st3v3r 11y ago
      "Sometimes the NSA feeds information to the FBI, DEA, etc, etc. Recipients do parallel construction. And then lie to courts about it. Which is perjury. How often does that get revealed?" Well, first you'd have to have evidence that such a thing happened.
clhodapp 11y ago
What do we think the likelihood is that at least some of the three-letter agencies already have the capability to get into a locked iPhone (likely their method would be based on some sort of baseband vulnerability) and this whole thing is simply a bid to gain the ability to openly unlock these phones?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- 542458 11y ago
  Baseband vuln seems likely. Additionally, I've always wondered if the NSA or the like could just decap and read out data (IE: the passcode hash) from the chips. Then again, I'm not a computer engineer and don't really know anything about the physics of all this! EDIT: This paper [1] seems to document such an attack, decapping the chip and reading the memory cells using lasers (although the details are over my head). [1]: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/SISW02.pdf https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/SISW02.pdf
  - matt_wulfeck 11y ago
    I think most of us are fine with the government being able to decap our phones and steal data, or at least try. I'm fine with that because It cost money and time and would be difficult for them to do in a massive, dragnet style operation. The idea is once they have the phone they can do whatever they want with it, but they can't go to a manufacturer and force them to weaken the security of _all_ phones because they don't want to do any work.
    - 542458 11y ago
      Yeah, I'm completely fine with that as well - I'm happy to see the NSA do computer-security stuff that isn't this dystopian "monitor everybody all the time" nonsense.
- Swannie 11y ago
  Such a vulnerability would almost certainly require the phone to be powered on, and for the boot time pin code entered (to allow the phone to decrypt user-space data). It's mechanism of action would be along the lines of reading the PIN code out of memory, trick the user into entering their PIN into a fake screen, read the decryption key out of memory, of make un-authorised calls to decrypt data. In the case that we're all talking about, this capability would be pointless. On the other hand, could a 3rd party create a crack that manipulated the PIN reset counter, in a way similar to that being requested by the FBI? Potentially with the right vulnerability. (Note, I've only skimmed the Apple white paper, so I may be wrong here).
jkyle 11y ago
While I find security fascinating I would not consider myself expert in the low level implementation details or hard limitations of these specific systems. Perhaps someone more knowledgable could clarify, but.... Isn't the entire point of good security that I don't have to "trust" Apple to do the right thing? Shouldn't it be impossible for them to do the wrong thing? For example, if I encrypt my phone with my key and set it to secure delete after so many failures how could Apple circumvent this in a truly secure system? Shouldn't they not be able to push an update without my permission? Permission that can't be given because the phone can't be unencrypted? So the fact that Apple can circumvent the encryption of they want is an indication of a vulnerable system?
- gresrun 11y ago
  Ultimately, all security is founded on a basis of trust. Be it trust that their word is good, their signature is difficult to forge, their code they open-source is actually what is running, etc. We trust these companies to do right by us as their customers.
  - criddell 11y ago
    There's an entire tower of technology and thousands of people that you have to trust. Unless you are going to build a computer by starting with a pile of sand, you build on things made by others that you have to trust to some degree.
- interpol_p 11y ago
  They can't circumvent the encryption. They can only bypass the failsafe mechanisms to allow for a brute force attack rate limited by the hardware (80ms per retry). Those two mechanisms are: exponentially longer password retry attempt delays, and deleting all data after 10 failed attempts. I imagine they are working hard on preventing themselves from being able to bypass the failsafes.
- predakanga 11y ago
  You're right in that the system is vulnerable, but this doesn't mean that it's not "secure" in practical terms. One could argue that the phone is secure because even Apple has no way of recovering your passcode, nor do they have a master key that might give access to your data. That's fairly secure. On the other hand, the system is insecure because it can have updates applied (which is what the FBI wants Apple to do) without requiring user consent, only physical access. Imagine that updates required a user to put in their passcode, or otherwise wiped all the encrypted data; it would be more secure, but is that enough? Theoretically, there are still ways of getting at the data - someone might find a bug in the software, or they might physically crack open the CPU to get at a piece of needed data. Security is always a balance - we want to trust Apple as little as possible, but I know of no way to create an invulnerable system.
rdtsc 11y ago
This is what good PR looks like. In cases like this it is always FBI and the govt. which usually have the PR upper hand. They wait to find a most abhorent crime that nobody sane would want to defend (terrorism seems to work well today) and use that as an example. "Oh look everyone, Apple doesn't want to fight terrorism. We are keeping people safe and what side are they on?". It is almost too easy. Fighting that is an uphill battle. One can present the technical details ("They could have cracked that particular model themselves") or appeal to more general ideals of freedom and privacy etc. Those typically are not as effective in convincing the average joe out there when the other side uses the "T" word. But here they are playing the same card as FBI -- using a crime that most people can fear -- their phone getting stolen, their identity used. Everyone has heard stories, has friends at least who this happened to and so on. So it works well. Terrorism is more scary, but this is more real. Great work.
- studentrob 11y ago
  Good PR, and also grounded in truth. If the DOJ understood the technology and implications of what they were requesting then they would not ask for it. Literally every person who speaks out against Apple begins with "I'm not a tech expert, but I know our world is going to be different if we can't get warranted access to criminals' phones". They completely fail to see how the private tech sector has fought for public safety. Comey said, They [Apple] sell phones, they don't sell civil liberties, they don't sell public safety, that's our business to worry about. [1] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h16m18s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h16m18s
  - empressplay 11y ago
    Their "truth" is a little sketchy. Their argument is essentially "you can't trust us to protect this software if we make it, and if we failed to keep it out of criminals hands you could be harmed by it". Phrased that way it doesn't really sound all that great.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      That is FBI director Comey's statement, not Apple's. Comey says, Apple is highly professional in protecting its own innovation, its own information [1] Comey even articulates Apple's position clearly, Apple's argument, I think will be, that's not reasonable because there are risks around that. Even though we're good at this, it could still get away from us. And the judge will have to figure that out [1] So Comey claims Apple is very good at technical stuff and so they must have a way to keep this software secure. Yet at the same time he claims we should not believe Apple when Apple says this backdoor would weaken everyone's security. On one hand he is saying we should believe in Apple's technology expertise, and on the other hand he is saying we should not. Well, given that Comey is self-admittedly not knowledgeable about technology, and given that many other tech companies and independent tech experts have stood up to support Apple, it's clear to me who to trust on this issue about tech security. Apple has demonstrated their commitment to safety by improving the iPhone's security with successive iterations of software and hardware. The FBI has demonstrated their deep desire to gain guaranteed backdoor entry to devices for over a year, yet claim this case is only about one phone. Apple's track record and rhetoric are much more consistent and trustworthy than the FBI's. [1] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=2h44m https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=2h44m
matt_wulfeck 11y ago
> The encryption technology built into today’s iPhone represents the best data security available to consumers. I appreciate Apple's willingness to fight, but this article could have benefited from less bragging PR talk and a little more humility. If the issue really is larger than Apple (and they are claiming it is) then we don't need this kind of messaging. The message is that being forced to create a backdoor is bad for everyone, and they're doing it to Apple today but they'll do it for everyone else tomorrow.
- studentrob 11y ago
  > The message is that being forced to create a backdoor is bad for everyone, and they're doing it to Apple today but they'll do it for everyone else tomorrow. I still got that vibe from the article, despite the one line you pointed out. That message becomes more clear when you see the support coming from Google, Facebook etc. It's clear they stand with Apple on the side of keeping encryption legal, secure, and backdoor-free. Apple doesn't need to speak for them too much, and I think Apple can still argue backdoors are bad for the whole tech industry while speaking about their own perspective, experience, and products.
- shawn-furyan 11y ago
  I don't agree with the complaint. I would be much happier if more companies actually tried on security, competed on that vector and then bragged to high heaven about their successes. Usually when you hear a company touting it's security, it's snake oil. The companies who are actually putting forth a solid effort to compete on security, and I think Apple has a reasonable claim that they are one of these companies (even if there are nits to pick), have my blessing to brag as much as they can about it. I'm talking multimillion dollar ad campaigns touting their (actual) security advantages versus competitors. Have at it. Donald Trump style. Go wild! edit: grammar
  - matt_wulfeck 11y ago
    > Usually when you hear a company touting it's security, it's snake oil. I guess this is part of the reason I have an aversion to companies speaking about their security. I know Apple security is very good (anyone curious can read the white paper), but most of the time corporations speak about security in a way completely detached from reality.
empressplay 11y ago
I have sympathy for Apple's position but when they resort to hyperbole they seriously undermine that goodwill. The "if we make this software, criminals will get their hands on it" argument is absurd. Does Apple have no faith in their own security? The FBI has at no point suggested the modified firmware would ever leave Apple's possession. Does Apple have a problem with theft of internal code that I am not aware of? Further, I'm just waiting for someone to transpose the argument, for example: "Apple says guns shouldn't be manufactured for any reason because they could kill someone" or "Apple says cars are unsafe and should be banned because people are killed in accidents." facepalm EDIT: Behaving like a bad actor even if you believe your cause is just still makes you a bad actor, albeit one with good intentions. If they want to win the argument they should stick to realistic positions and leave the manure shovelling to "those other people".
- NolF 11y ago
  Once Apple does it for the USA, what's stopping from the UAE and China to request the same? If a government can compel to break into your own device, what will happen later on when you close those backdoors? What's stopping the governments from demanding you leave a backdoor by pointing "hey but you could do it before"?
  - empressplay 11y ago
    Well then maybe they should say that?
    - generj 11y ago
      They have stated this numerous times in public (being careful not to outright state "China") as well as in their court docs.
- Tempest1981 11y ago
  > Does Apple have a problem with theft of internal code that I am not aware of? It only takes one disgruntled employee, or one security slip, and 100-500 million users are compromised. Not a risk I'm comfortable with. You're requiring them to be perfect. But humans are involved.
malandrew 11y ago
Simply put "The FBI and other law enforcement agents want to make it easier for many criminals to commit many new crimes for the sake of solving a few crimes already committed" Basically, the FBI's actions are tantamount to being accomplish to every crime they enable if they succeed in forcing us to make the iPhone knowingly vulnerable to law enforcement and criminals alike.
kriro 11y ago
It seems Apple is committed. As strange as it may sound, I wonder how that will influence recruiting. Apple was never really on my radar as an employer (silly as it may be I still categorize them in the "hipster and annoying apple store" bin). Their recent "hardline" regarding privacy has made them a nudge more attractive. And that's despite me usually favoring non-proprietary stuff for everything if possible. Strange to catch yourself in these thoughts but the narrative seems to work.
- bryanrasmussen 11y ago
  I wonder if people declared they would rather quit than work on the backdoor project if that would be an undue burden on the company.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    That's a scary possibility, but very far in the future. There will be appeals regardless of how the district-court judge rules. An attorney for the ACLU says, "The absolute earliest the case could reach the Supreme Court would be at least two years." [1] [1] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/apple-and-the-fbi-what-happens-next http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/apple-and-the...
  - biturd 11y ago
    Apparently they did, for there mere reason of guilt by association and simple to avoid subpoena. You can't answer what you don't know.
merpnderp 11y ago
Would be funny (by funny I mean sad) if Apple gives them the new hacked ios build and the password turns out to be something like 'NYOEC"T80BkLYExMU7JYWaz&P}dtMBR', ie they can't ever brute force it.

321 points by ropiku 11y ago

lucio 11y ago

if you can access it, a determined criminal with a $5 wrench can too. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/

matt_wulfeck 11y ago
Not when they're dead, which is the case of syed farook.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Well Tim Cook is alive and well and has Apple signing keys.
Sanddancer 11y ago
Yes, rubber hose crypt-analysis. One of the reasons that the FBI wants apple to make a new version of the encryption software is that you can set your phone such that after ten attempts, it's wiped. Key erased, data bye bye.

geographomics 11y ago

The backdoor is already present, through Apple's design. The FBI are just requesting to use it.

TruthSHIFT 11y ago
What backdoor is that?
- geographomics 11y ago
  Being able to load arbitrary firmware onto the device without requiring user authentication, so long as it's signed by Apple.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    This is just how Apple does things. Indeed, Apple expects you to trust it more than you trust yourself.
    - newjersey 11y ago
      How can we fix it? Easiest I can think of is wipe storage if updating without user authentication. Any better way?
      - mirimir 11y ago
        Who is "we" here? Apple could do that, for sure. In the present contest, I can see why they'd want to. It would be a great move to forestall this sort of attack in future. But "we", as in you and I, cannot easily do this. Because we can't sign stuff as Apple. But maybe it's doable.
        bshep 11y ago
        I think this is where things are headed. I think we will soon see a new version of iOS by Apple with more stringent security (no updates without authentication or information is wiped when you force an update). If this doesn't happen, I would highly suspect there is an NSL (or something similar) involved forbidding it.
    - nihonde 11y ago
      You can vote with your dollars, you know. Feel free to buy devices from those other manufacturers that you trust.
      - 11y ago
legulere 11y ago
If I get it right you're calling update functionality a backdoor?
- Crito 11y ago
  Whether we want to call it a backdoor or get senselessly pedantic about terminology and call it a "front door", the practical reality is yes; it is that functionality that the FBI is asking Apple to take advantage of.
- geographomics 11y ago
  The way it is currently implemented, by which Apple can - if in physical possession of the device - unilaterally force new firmware onto it without the consent of the user, yes.
niels_olson 11y ago
You misunderstand, or at the very least, misrepresent the situation. The only threat Apple apparently didn't design for is the threat of the most powerful nation on earth overreaching their authority by ordering Apple to write and sign an entire operating system with the express purpose of defeating their own safeguards. Which is next-level crazy.
- geographomics 11y ago
  Nonetheless, if Apple had designed the update mechanism to require both a signed firmware image, and authentication by the user, then the FBI's request would not be possible. Such a design would also help to mitigate the end-user effects of an insider attack at Apple, where a rogue employee signs malicious firmware, or leaks the signing key to some adversary.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > then the FBI's request would not be possible. While that may be a good design for various practical reasons, the technical properties of Apple's security design are not very relevant. This is a political issue about how far Apple (and eventually, any of us) has to go in creating access for law enforcement. Right now the FBI is being reasonably diplomatic and "asking" (formally, through the court) to create this backdoor. If the situation were as you suggest and no update capability existed, they would simply skip the current step and move on to the next step: forcing Apple to include explicit "lawful intercept" capabilities. It is very important for us to win this earlier stage of the fight, because it will be much harder to fight a law. In case you've forgotten, the traditional telcom industry already lost that fight (CALEA).
  - vdek 11y ago
    This is an iPhone 5c, not a 6/6s. The newer models with the secure enclave chip are more secure.

valine 11y ago

"They have suggested that the safeguards of iOS 7 were good enough and that we should simply go back to the security standards of 2013." This is interesting. Perhaps instead of requesting a custom version of iOS with specific vulnerabilities, the FBI should simply request a signed version of iOS 7.0. They could use existing vulnerabilities to gain access to the phone, without placing an undue burden on Apple.

ikeboy 11y ago
I wonder if any keys are wiped, or if the system is capable of downgrading without losing data. (The existing vulnerabilities would be the "cut power after each attempt" one, I assume.)
kccqzy 11y ago
I'm pretty sure the many on-device storage formats have changed as new features are introduced. I'm pretty the Notes app in iOS 7 doesn't have the capability of inserting doodles or checklists for example. And the Messages app doesn't support groups with names. FBI doesn't just want an unlocked phone, they want an unlocked phone with data intact, so Apple still needs to write and test a lot of code that performs reverse database migrations, possibly losing information in the process.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  If systems can be technically downgraded without losing data, just making it inaccessible, then they can downgrade, crack the code, then upgrade. I don't know enough to know whether this works. I suspect apps that didn't exist in iOS 7 would have their data deleted, although perhaps this wouldn't happen if it wasn't unlocked (and it would be power-cut as soon as it was cracked).
msbarnett 11y ago
No. Among other things, the order the FBI sought requires Apple to build a RAM only version of iOS. Anything that requires reflashing the phone, or that writes log files at boot or alters as much as a single bit on the phone is a no-go from an evidentiary standpoint. Edit: but anyway, iOS 7 has no understanding of the encrypted format introduced in iOS 8

jgalt212 11y ago

There's gotta be a way for Apple to deliver the FBI the data they want without compromising every iPhone user. And if Apple doesn't find a way, you can sure bet the NSA will work harder on its efforts to break the iPhone in the general case.

SeanBoocock 11y ago
They can. The arguments are over whether the FBI has the legal standing to compel Apple to create code to do that, and what precedent, legal or otherwise, it sets for similar cases.
- jgalt212 11y ago
  Can the FBI compel a bank to open a safe deposit box? Can a bank be compelled to identify the names on a numbered account? If they can, then Apple can be compelled to deliver the goods on these terrorists. If not, then no. I really don't see this issue as all that complex.
  - Gracana 11y ago
    A bank doesn't have to spend time developing a product to allow the door to be opened. They just open the door. That's not the case here with Apple.
    - jgalt212 11y ago
      True, but the first time they did blast open a safe deposit box, I bet there was significant time and expense involved. Now it's just a known process.
      - chrishas35 11y ago
        Doesn't take a lot of time and expense to figure out how to use a drill...
  - thwarted 11y ago

mirimir 11y ago

Are the FBI "criminals", when they're breaking the law?

niels_olson 11y ago
Officers of the government can absolutely be charged with crimes.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Sure. But that doesn't happen very often. Or often enough to make much difference, anyway. Sometimes the NSA feeds information to the FBI, DEA, etc, etc. Recipients do parallel construction. And then lie to courts about it. Which is perjury. How often does that get revealed? Have any prosecutions resulted from widely practiced perjury about obfuscated stingray use? That behavior is common knowledge, no?
  - newjersey 11y ago
    I think it seriously hurts the ability of the NSA to recruit the best and the brightest people (as if the mass surveillance hadn't already hampered things a little too well) if there is a public perception that they are just like IT support of other three letter agencies, mindlessly doing what they order without any discretion. I hear people say we can't have universal healthcare because a decently priced tri care is one of the main draws for joining the military and we'd have to pay more to recruit and retain soldiers if we have universal healthcare. What basic rights do we curtail so it will be easier for the NSA to recruit in the future?
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      That line of thinking makes about as much sense as "marijuana will never be legal because they can't tax it."
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    "Sometimes the NSA feeds information to the FBI, DEA, etc, etc. Recipients do parallel construction. And then lie to courts about it. Which is perjury. How often does that get revealed?" Well, first you'd have to have evidence that such a thing happened.

clhodapp 11y ago

What do we think the likelihood is that at least some of the three-letter agencies already have the capability to get into a locked iPhone (likely their method would be based on some sort of baseband vulnerability) and this whole thing is simply a bid to gain the ability to openly unlock these phones?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
542458 11y ago
Baseband vuln seems likely. Additionally, I've always wondered if the NSA or the like could just decap and read out data (IE: the passcode hash) from the chips. Then again, I'm not a computer engineer and don't really know anything about the physics of all this! EDIT: This paper [1] seems to document such an attack, decapping the chip and reading the memory cells using lasers (although the details are over my head). [1]: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/SISW02.pdf https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/SISW02.pdf
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  I think most of us are fine with the government being able to decap our phones and steal data, or at least try. I'm fine with that because It cost money and time and would be difficult for them to do in a massive, dragnet style operation. The idea is once they have the phone they can do whatever they want with it, but they can't go to a manufacturer and force them to weaken the security of _all_ phones because they don't want to do any work.
  - 542458 11y ago
    Yeah, I'm completely fine with that as well - I'm happy to see the NSA do computer-security stuff that isn't this dystopian "monitor everybody all the time" nonsense.
Swannie 11y ago
Such a vulnerability would almost certainly require the phone to be powered on, and for the boot time pin code entered (to allow the phone to decrypt user-space data). It's mechanism of action would be along the lines of reading the PIN code out of memory, trick the user into entering their PIN into a fake screen, read the decryption key out of memory, of make un-authorised calls to decrypt data. In the case that we're all talking about, this capability would be pointless. On the other hand, could a 3rd party create a crack that manipulated the PIN reset counter, in a way similar to that being requested by the FBI? Potentially with the right vulnerability. (Note, I've only skimmed the Apple white paper, so I may be wrong here).

jkyle 11y ago

While I find security fascinating I would not consider myself expert in the low level implementation details or hard limitations of these specific systems. Perhaps someone more knowledgable could clarify, but.... Isn't the entire point of good security that I don't have to "trust" Apple to do the right thing? Shouldn't it be impossible for them to do the wrong thing? For example, if I encrypt my phone with my key and set it to secure delete after so many failures how could Apple circumvent this in a truly secure system? Shouldn't they not be able to push an update without my permission? Permission that can't be given because the phone can't be unencrypted? So the fact that Apple can circumvent the encryption of they want is an indication of a vulnerable system?

gresrun 11y ago
Ultimately, all security is founded on a basis of trust. Be it trust that their word is good, their signature is difficult to forge, their code they open-source is actually what is running, etc. We trust these companies to do right by us as their customers.
- criddell 11y ago
  There's an entire tower of technology and thousands of people that you have to trust. Unless you are going to build a computer by starting with a pile of sand, you build on things made by others that you have to trust to some degree.
interpol_p 11y ago
They can't circumvent the encryption. They can only bypass the failsafe mechanisms to allow for a brute force attack rate limited by the hardware (80ms per retry). Those two mechanisms are: exponentially longer password retry attempt delays, and deleting all data after 10 failed attempts. I imagine they are working hard on preventing themselves from being able to bypass the failsafes.
predakanga 11y ago
You're right in that the system is vulnerable, but this doesn't mean that it's not "secure" in practical terms. One could argue that the phone is secure because even Apple has no way of recovering your passcode, nor do they have a master key that might give access to your data. That's fairly secure. On the other hand, the system is insecure because it can have updates applied (which is what the FBI wants Apple to do) without requiring user consent, only physical access. Imagine that updates required a user to put in their passcode, or otherwise wiped all the encrypted data; it would be more secure, but is that enough? Theoretically, there are still ways of getting at the data - someone might find a bug in the software, or they might physically crack open the CPU to get at a piece of needed data. Security is always a balance - we want to trust Apple as little as possible, but I know of no way to create an invulnerable system.

rdtsc 11y ago

This is what good PR looks like. In cases like this it is always FBI and the govt. which usually have the PR upper hand. They wait to find a most abhorent crime that nobody sane would want to defend (terrorism seems to work well today) and use that as an example. "Oh look everyone, Apple doesn't want to fight terrorism. We are keeping people safe and what side are they on?". It is almost too easy. Fighting that is an uphill battle. One can present the technical details ("They could have cracked that particular model themselves") or appeal to more general ideals of freedom and privacy etc. Those typically are not as effective in convincing the average joe out there when the other side uses the "T" word. But here they are playing the same card as FBI -- using a crime that most people can fear -- their phone getting stolen, their identity used. Everyone has heard stories, has friends at least who this happened to and so on. So it works well. Terrorism is more scary, but this is more real. Great work.

studentrob 11y ago
Good PR, and also grounded in truth. If the DOJ understood the technology and implications of what they were requesting then they would not ask for it. Literally every person who speaks out against Apple begins with "I'm not a tech expert, but I know our world is going to be different if we can't get warranted access to criminals' phones". They completely fail to see how the private tech sector has fought for public safety. Comey said, They [Apple] sell phones, they don't sell civil liberties, they don't sell public safety, that's our business to worry about. [1] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h16m18s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h16m18s
- empressplay 11y ago
  Their "truth" is a little sketchy. Their argument is essentially "you can't trust us to protect this software if we make it, and if we failed to keep it out of criminals hands you could be harmed by it". Phrased that way it doesn't really sound all that great.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    That is FBI director Comey's statement, not Apple's. Comey says, Apple is highly professional in protecting its own innovation, its own information [1] Comey even articulates Apple's position clearly, Apple's argument, I think will be, that's not reasonable because there are risks around that. Even though we're good at this, it could still get away from us. And the judge will have to figure that out [1] So Comey claims Apple is very good at technical stuff and so they must have a way to keep this software secure. Yet at the same time he claims we should not believe Apple when Apple says this backdoor would weaken everyone's security. On one hand he is saying we should believe in Apple's technology expertise, and on the other hand he is saying we should not. Well, given that Comey is self-admittedly not knowledgeable about technology, and given that many other tech companies and independent tech experts have stood up to support Apple, it's clear to me who to trust on this issue about tech security. Apple has demonstrated their commitment to safety by improving the iPhone's security with successive iterations of software and hardware. The FBI has demonstrated their deep desire to gain guaranteed backdoor entry to devices for over a year, yet claim this case is only about one phone. Apple's track record and rhetoric are much more consistent and trustworthy than the FBI's. [1] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=2h44m https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=2h44m

matt_wulfeck 11y ago

> The encryption technology built into today’s iPhone represents the best data security available to consumers. I appreciate Apple's willingness to fight, but this article could have benefited from less bragging PR talk and a little more humility. If the issue really is larger than Apple (and they are claiming it is) then we don't need this kind of messaging. The message is that being forced to create a backdoor is bad for everyone, and they're doing it to Apple today but they'll do it for everyone else tomorrow.

studentrob 11y ago
> The message is that being forced to create a backdoor is bad for everyone, and they're doing it to Apple today but they'll do it for everyone else tomorrow. I still got that vibe from the article, despite the one line you pointed out. That message becomes more clear when you see the support coming from Google, Facebook etc. It's clear they stand with Apple on the side of keeping encryption legal, secure, and backdoor-free. Apple doesn't need to speak for them too much, and I think Apple can still argue backdoors are bad for the whole tech industry while speaking about their own perspective, experience, and products.
shawn-furyan 11y ago
I don't agree with the complaint. I would be much happier if more companies actually tried on security, competed on that vector and then bragged to high heaven about their successes. Usually when you hear a company touting it's security, it's snake oil. The companies who are actually putting forth a solid effort to compete on security, and I think Apple has a reasonable claim that they are one of these companies (even if there are nits to pick), have my blessing to brag as much as they can about it. I'm talking multimillion dollar ad campaigns touting their (actual) security advantages versus competitors. Have at it. Donald Trump style. Go wild! edit: grammar
- matt_wulfeck 11y ago
  > Usually when you hear a company touting it's security, it's snake oil. I guess this is part of the reason I have an aversion to companies speaking about their security. I know Apple security is very good (anyone curious can read the white paper), but most of the time corporations speak about security in a way completely detached from reality.

empressplay 11y ago

I have sympathy for Apple's position but when they resort to hyperbole they seriously undermine that goodwill. The "if we make this software, criminals will get their hands on it" argument is absurd. Does Apple have no faith in their own security? The FBI has at no point suggested the modified firmware would ever leave Apple's possession. Does Apple have a problem with theft of internal code that I am not aware of? Further, I'm just waiting for someone to transpose the argument, for example: "Apple says guns shouldn't be manufactured for any reason because they could kill someone" or "Apple says cars are unsafe and should be banned because people are killed in accidents." facepalm EDIT: Behaving like a bad actor even if you believe your cause is just still makes you a bad actor, albeit one with good intentions. If they want to win the argument they should stick to realistic positions and leave the manure shovelling to "those other people".

NolF 11y ago
Once Apple does it for the USA, what's stopping from the UAE and China to request the same? If a government can compel to break into your own device, what will happen later on when you close those backdoors? What's stopping the governments from demanding you leave a backdoor by pointing "hey but you could do it before"?
- empressplay 11y ago
  Well then maybe they should say that?
  - generj 11y ago
    They have stated this numerous times in public (being careful not to outright state "China") as well as in their court docs.
Tempest1981 11y ago
> Does Apple have a problem with theft of internal code that I am not aware of? It only takes one disgruntled employee, or one security slip, and 100-500 million users are compromised. Not a risk I'm comfortable with. You're requiring them to be perfect. But humans are involved.

malandrew 11y ago

Simply put "The FBI and other law enforcement agents want to make it easier for many criminals to commit many new crimes for the sake of solving a few crimes already committed" Basically, the FBI's actions are tantamount to being accomplish to every crime they enable if they succeed in forcing us to make the iPhone knowingly vulnerable to law enforcement and criminals alike.

kriro 11y ago

It seems Apple is committed. As strange as it may sound, I wonder how that will influence recruiting. Apple was never really on my radar as an employer (silly as it may be I still categorize them in the "hipster and annoying apple store" bin). Their recent "hardline" regarding privacy has made them a nudge more attractive. And that's despite me usually favoring non-proprietary stuff for everything if possible. Strange to catch yourself in these thoughts but the narrative seems to work.

bryanrasmussen 11y ago
I wonder if people declared they would rather quit than work on the backdoor project if that would be an undue burden on the company.
- studentrob 11y ago
  That's a scary possibility, but very far in the future. There will be appeals regardless of how the district-court judge rules. An attorney for the ACLU says, "The absolute earliest the case could reach the Supreme Court would be at least two years." [1] [1] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/apple-and-the-fbi-what-happens-next http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/apple-and-the...
- biturd 11y ago
  Apparently they did, for there mere reason of guilt by association and simple to avoid subpoena. You can't answer what you don't know.

merpnderp 11y ago

Would be funny (by funny I mean sad) if Apple gives them the new hacked ios build and the password turns out to be something like 'NYOEC"T80BkLYExMU7JYWaz&P}dtMBR', ie they can't ever brute force it.