4 ms·

Yes. The FBI wants to run arbitrary code on a device it legally owns. Were the iPhone consistent with Free Software principles, that would be trivial. It is onl

Yes. The FBI wants to run arbitrary code on a device it legally owns. Were the iPhone consistent with Free Software principles, that would be trivial. It is only because Apple built the walls of the walled garden so high (specifically implementing code signing enforcement in hardware) that this is so difficult for the FBI. Free Software on general purpose computing hardware can't stop you from reading its storage with other software (i.e. with security features commented out) - that's kind of the point.

mindslight 11y ago
Sure, but the design constraints change along with. If the iPhone were Free, its security would have been designed to withstand any code changes, ala LUKS.
- superuser2 11y ago
  Most people don't boot their computers very frequently, and when they do they have a full-sized keyboard at their disposal.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    That's orthogonal to what I said. But to address your implicit point about UI - 64 bits of entropy is 6 diceware words, which seems eminently doable for your casual user wanting casual security. Phones are kept in possession more, and thus need a cold-unlock less frequently. And users are still free to compromise their security by using less entropy, just as they are currently regarding Apple (and likely by extension USG, as is currently being worked out). Also tamper-resistant hardware isn't strictly incompatible with Free software. Imagine a security model that allowed loading of whatever software image, but wiped nonvolatile storage before doing so.
    - superuser2 11y ago
      People were annoyed enough by 4 digits that Touch ID was a major selling point. 6 words isn't gonna happen. But you already can use such a password with an iPhone, and if you do, the attack the FBI is attempting won't work. Software freedom doesn't enter into it. What should (and might) happen is Apple's model being amended to also require a code-signing key held by the user, encrypted with the rest of the phone. Apple could do this in its closed-source model, and Free Software wouldn't necessarily do that. Proper security design here really has nothing to do with whether the software is free.
      - mindslight 11y ago
        Surprise surprise, pop culture is based on laziness. Free software generally relies wholly on complexity theoretic security - so that it can be completely software based, as well as the author lacking any special privilege when the source is released. Computationally security necessitates a certain minimum amount of entropy. For UI reasons, Apple would like to skimp on the required entropy, and thus employs additional non-complexity-based means of security. While this provides security for a casual user against a casual attacker, it unfortunately creates a juicy target for USG to fixate on, as in the current proceedings. It would have been more responsible for Apple to have designed their system so that low entropy passcodes were directly crackable by USG, rather than leaving themselves in a privileged position they can be compelled to use.
adrianN 11y ago
Ehm, no? Free software says nothing about making your encryption easy to break. If I use free software to encrypt my hard disk and then somebody kills me my password is gone.
- superuser2 11y ago
  If it's short enough that you're willing to type it every time you touch your phone, then it can probably be cracked very easily by cloning your flash storage and brute-forcing in parallel. If you use a strong password on an iPhone than the attack the FBI is trying to pull wouldn't work either.
  - devishard 11y ago
    You're missing the point. Nothing is preventing free software from running on hardware that contains a hardware key just like the iPhone.
    - superuser2 11y ago
      Nope, you are. Nothing prevents it, nothing makes it any more likely, but the free software community's opposition to TPM and hardware-enforced code signing does make it less likely. We still have to worry about this stuff even when the software is free.
      - devishard 11y ago
        You said: > If it's short enough that you're willing to type it every time you touch your phone, then it can probably be cracked very easily by cloning your flash storage and brute-forcing in parallel. That doesn't work with a unique hardware key. Being clearer since you missed it the first time: the attack you describe does not work on the iPhone. Nobody is proposing that FOSS is a security panacea: FOSS would still have to run on hardware with a hardware key to achieve similar password security. But if such FOSS existed, it could be more secure than the iPhone can be, because it would be immune to the attack that the FBI is attempting.

mindslight 11y ago

Sure, but the design constraints change along with. If the iPhone were Free, its security would have been designed to withstand any code changes, ala LUKS.

superuser2 11y ago
Most people don't boot their computers very frequently, and when they do they have a full-sized keyboard at their disposal.
- mindslight 11y ago
  That's orthogonal to what I said. But to address your implicit point about UI - 64 bits of entropy is 6 diceware words, which seems eminently doable for your casual user wanting casual security. Phones are kept in possession more, and thus need a cold-unlock less frequently. And users are still free to compromise their security by using less entropy, just as they are currently regarding Apple (and likely by extension USG, as is currently being worked out). Also tamper-resistant hardware isn't strictly incompatible with Free software. Imagine a security model that allowed loading of whatever software image, but wiped nonvolatile storage before doing so.
  - superuser2 11y ago
    People were annoyed enough by 4 digits that Touch ID was a major selling point. 6 words isn't gonna happen. But you already can use such a password with an iPhone, and if you do, the attack the FBI is attempting won't work. Software freedom doesn't enter into it. What should (and might) happen is Apple's model being amended to also require a code-signing key held by the user, encrypted with the rest of the phone. Apple could do this in its closed-source model, and Free Software wouldn't necessarily do that. Proper security design here really has nothing to do with whether the software is free.
    - mindslight 11y ago
      Surprise surprise, pop culture is based on laziness. Free software generally relies wholly on complexity theoretic security - so that it can be completely software based, as well as the author lacking any special privilege when the source is released. Computationally security necessitates a certain minimum amount of entropy. For UI reasons, Apple would like to skimp on the required entropy, and thus employs additional non-complexity-based means of security. While this provides security for a casual user against a casual attacker, it unfortunately creates a juicy target for USG to fixate on, as in the current proceedings. It would have been more responsible for Apple to have designed their system so that low entropy passcodes were directly crackable by USG, rather than leaving themselves in a privileged position they can be compelled to use.

adrianN 11y ago

Ehm, no? Free software says nothing about making your encryption easy to break. If I use free software to encrypt my hard disk and then somebody kills me my password is gone.

superuser2 11y ago
If it's short enough that you're willing to type it every time you touch your phone, then it can probably be cracked very easily by cloning your flash storage and brute-forcing in parallel. If you use a strong password on an iPhone than the attack the FBI is trying to pull wouldn't work either.
- devishard 11y ago
  You're missing the point. Nothing is preventing free software from running on hardware that contains a hardware key just like the iPhone.
  - superuser2 11y ago
    Nope, you are. Nothing prevents it, nothing makes it any more likely, but the free software community's opposition to TPM and hardware-enforced code signing does make it less likely. We still have to worry about this stuff even when the software is free.
    - devishard 11y ago
      You said: > If it's short enough that you're willing to type it every time you touch your phone, then it can probably be cracked very easily by cloning your flash storage and brute-forcing in parallel. That doesn't work with a unique hardware key. Being clearer since you missed it the first time: the attack you describe does not work on the iPhone. Nobody is proposing that FOSS is a security panacea: FOSS would still have to run on hardware with a hardware key to achieve similar password security. But if such FOSS existed, it could be more secure than the iPhone can be, because it would be immune to the attack that the FBI is attempting.