11 ms·

Apple wants the FBI to reveal how it hacked the San Bernardino killer's iPhone

157 points by salmonet 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tallerholler 11y ago
what if they just guessed the passcode based on numbers found associated with the couple or some other means of figuring it out like discovering a commonly used pin?
riotdash 11y ago
Ask these guys, not the feds: http://www.cellebrite.com/Pages/cellebrite-solution-for-locked-apple-devices-running-ios-8x http://www.cellebrite.com/Pages/cellebrite-solution-for-lock... You are welcome Apple.
- crb 11y ago
  The San Bernadino phone was running iOS 9. (It's reasonable to assume that if there was a vulnerability in 8.x, Apple would want to have fixed it in 9.)
  - camillomiller 11y ago
    Cellebrite is a multinational with lots of resources. I would expect they already had some solution for iOS 9 devices in the pipeline, which was not ready to be made into a public product yet. Nonetheless they were more than happy to field test it with the San Bernardino terrorist's phone. DISCLAIMER: That's my speculation, based on my own coverage of the whole Apple-FBI thing.
  - LeifCarrotson 11y ago
    But the San Bernardino phone did not have the secure enclave that new iOS 9 devices have. If the vulnerability is unworkable on devices with the secure enclave, well, they've already fixed it.
  - Swannie 11y ago
    Is it possible to downgrade to iOS 8 without the pin?
- sjwright 11y ago
  If that's the case (and we can only guess) I can't possibly imagine that Cellebrite would offer Apple a way to make their services less useful than they already are.
- jonah 11y ago
  "without any hardware intervention". Hmm, does this mean they're not desoldering the flash?
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Cellebrite's full portfolio is not public what you see on their site are very basic turn-key solutions. They have a bespoke service called CAIS as well as few other unlisted services which they do not advertise openly given their sensitive nature. Their turn-key forensic solutions are tailored for general law enforcement and the public sector (private investigators, corporate security, law firms etc.), CAIS is usually offered to state security agencies and they have other services which are tailored towards intelligence and national security agencies.
    - jonah 11y ago
      > Cellebrite's full portfolio is not public So, basically their own collection of zero-days and techniques? Do they come up with them themselves, or do they buy them on the exploit market?
      - dogma1138 11y ago
        Probably both, not necessarily "zero-days" at least not in the traditional sense but various attacks and services that they might not want to advertise publicly for various reasons (don't forget that as an Israeli company their exports are controlled by the Israeli Defense Ministry). In some cases they might also offer a bring your own exploit type of service where they integrate client provided exploits with their existing platforms and solutions. Some of their products are also hardware focused, their "Chinese SOC" attacks are mostly OS agnostic (Mediatek chipsets for example are attacked via some generic DMA exploit) and are designed specifically to assist LEA's to breaking into cheap disposable phone. http://www.cellebrite.com/Media/Default/Files/Forensics/Data-Sheets/UFED-Chinex-DataSheet.pdf http://www.cellebrite.com/Media/Default/Files/Forensics/Data... But like any company these days it pretty much depends on what you want to buy for them they'll offer you a wide range of services from idiot proof turn key solutions to bespoke consulting like services, if they do have the ability to break into iOS9 or a more generic way to attack Apple SOC's they will not advertise it openly, at least not initially from previous experience with them it can take months and even years between them actually have an initial capability to it being integrated into their open commercial products. This isn't only done for secrecy reasons this is also pragmatic some attacks might be very case dependent, expensive, or even potentially destructive and so wont be offered with their normal forensic services (that have to comply to very strict forensic standards, including being able to openly explain how access was achieved to ensure that the data has actually been extracted correctly and chain of custody maintained) so quite often what they are offered under their more bespoke services are capabilities that are not (yet) commercially viable for general forensic use. In this case the FBI or any other agency is quite likely not to care about presenting the information as evidence in court, and their risk appetite might also be considerably greater. Your local police/DA on the other hand must be able to present the evidence and defend how it was obtained in court so the tool has to be certified (NIST in case of US courts) and the extraction method has to be defensible in court. However if we are talking about zero-days then those also cannot be offered as part of their commercial turn key solutions (court defensibility aside) because the solutions they provide have to be reliable and consistent. Zero-days for the most part are likely to be fixed quicker than their products can be shipped yet alone certified so anything which is that volatile will only be offered via their "consulting service" and the clients will be quite aware that they are paying for something that might be a one off solution only.
dcw303 11y ago
Deduction should make it pretty simple. There are a large number of phones out that law agencies want hacked. If the FBI completely stops asking for assistance, Apple can consider the exploit still active.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Mikhail_Edoshin 11y ago
I guess they should file a motion or how does this work to force FBI to disclose what they did :) It's only fair to give the FBI a chance to write a public letter too.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
incepted 11y ago
I really find this whole thing hilarious. First, it's Apple sticking it to the FBI by making a stand for privacy and receiving public accolades doing so as a champion of privacy. The FBI is the bad guy trying to invade our privacy. Now, it's the FBI sending a giant "screw you" to Apple by not only letting them know they were able to hack into the phone without Apple's help but at the same time, making a mockery of Apple's entire security claims. And now, Apple is in panic mode, slowly realizing that they went from being the hero of privacy in the modern age to the company that wasn't able to secure its phone from the FBI. From the FBI. Of all things. No wonder they are freaking out and they want to know how the FBI did it. Except that if I were them, I certainly wouldn't ask that publicly, I would at least pretend I know how the FBI did it and claim that it's already fixed in the next version of the OS. Which still means that tens of millions of iPhones are at risk today and will be for months, but at least, you get to pretend that you're ahead of the FBI while right now, it's pretty obvious that Apple has been outsmarted by a government agency. The bottom line is that in this line of work, it pays to be discreet and humble.
- bitJericho 11y ago
  You think Apple should have lied to the public?
  - daxfohl 11y ago
    I assume he means this would be the best strategy (if kept under wraps) for Apple's reputation; the public's interests notwithstanding. Regardless, grandstanding twice just looks foolish for everyone except the FBI.
    - mcphage 11y ago
      You think this case makes the FBI look good? It took a month long media circus, made Apple look like the good guys, pissing off most of the tech community—all to unlock a single phone that likely has no useful data on it. If they had wanted to advertise their ability to unlock iPhones, they would have just done it, and done a press conference about how they unlocked it and got lots of good information. Instead, they look like they were desperately scrambling, before some "Canadian girlfriend" showed up at the last minute and saved them from looked even more foolish. Sure, from Apple's side, it would have been better had it gone to court and been established that the government isn't allowed to do what it was trying to do, but... I don't see the FBI trying the same tactic again, and, here's the kicker—if they can't establish the authority to force Apple to unlock phones on non-secure enclave machines, then when they need a secure enclave equipped phone unlocked, it's going to be a lot harder to use the All Writs Act to force Apple's hand.
clort 11y ago
well it seems to me that now they know the bug exists, and they have the source code, that makes it easier to find. They have plenty of clever people at Apple I'm sure they will work it out. I guess the biggest problem really is that they don't know if this vulnerability exists in current versions or if it was already fixed. I don't know that they would normally bother to fix old vulnerabilities but they do need to work on identifying this one at least.
laurencei 11y ago
Doesn't this create a kind of precident for future requests to unlock iPhones on a newer OS? If the FBI/US Gov go to court saying they require Apples assistance - can't Apple turn around and basically say "this is what you said last time - and you worked it out - so we are sure you'll work it out again without our help"?
- sjwright 11y ago
  It certainly creates a precedent in the court of public opinion. Somehow I doubt the FBI are going to try this tactic again.
- viraptor 11y ago
  > for future requests to unlock iPhones on a newer OS It won't work on newer phones. The whole discussion is possible right now mainly because it's an iPhone 5c without a secure enclave. With (I believe) 6 and up the protection checking lives inside of an equivalent of PC's TPM. You can tell it "here's data and key, decode it" or "validate these bytes", but not "give me the internal key" - it doesn't support this on hardware level. (apologies to anyone annoyed at the simplification)
marincounty 11y ago
Which company, or group did the hacking? I was told it was an Israeli company? If the company is listed, I would be tempted to gamble my last $500? My luck--it will go down. (I am curious if someone they really did hack it.)
ccarter84 11y ago
To best of my knowledge, there's no law saying the Government has to disclose squat to Apple. Given the public bickering/brinksmenship going on these past couple weeks, I doubt they'll be inclined to do so, and they're probably also bound by NDA's from Cellebrite or whoever created the hack (if the Feds even know how they did it) There's some irony in here somewhere...
- okonomiyaki3000 11y ago
  Is it possible that the FBI has violated the DMCA?
  - clort 11y ago
    Probably not, according to Bruce Schneier https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/08/dmca_does_not_a.html
    - okonomiyaki3000 11y ago
      Yeah, I guess I should have expected that.
  - maw 11y ago
    My first thought as well. Thanks to clort for the link, even if I don't like what it says.
- MatthewWilkes 11y ago
  No law, but it is generally US government policy: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/fbi-breaks-iphone-and-we-have-some-questions https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/fbi-breaks-iphone-and-...
dtf 11y ago
If it was a million dollar hardware-level exploit, does it really matter? Much of the excited reporting on this seems to assume the FBI exploited an iOS software bug... do the press know something we don't?
jackyau 11y ago
Compared with android phone, it's still better for us. Encryption means it's hard to decryption not impossible to decryption.
_Understated_ 11y ago
Is there any way for Apple to compel them to provide the details? I would imagine that the Government has made the laws so they don't have to comply with them the same way we do.
bsder 11y ago
Um, Apple doesn't really care, but they are continuing to stick it to the FBI. If the FBI cracked the phone, then Apple can smack them with it when this comes around again. If the FBI didn't crack the phone, then Apple can smack them with it for dropping the lawsuit. This is just Apple saying "Fuck you, FBI, for bringing this lawsuit and then dropping it when things went badly. You're gonna sweat some more before you get off the hook."
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Apple does care because the public (mainly non US) cares. That said Apple can't really smack the FBI, in fact if the FBI tries this again on a different case saying that they've exhausted all options and that neither them nor any other 3rd party can unlock the phone that puts pressure on Apple not the FBI. And considering that the according to polling data only about 30% of the people say that Apple should not unlock the phone and 50% saying they should the public opinion doesn't really works for them currently. The FBI might be playing the long game, they'll unlock a couple of phones (or pretend to do so), even cooperate with Apple and when the time comes go back to court saying that Apple fixed any potential flaw, and that the FBI might've even assisted them in doing so and now they hit a wall and need Apple's help.
stefanix 11y ago
I am sure TAO has a rich portfolio of zero day exploits for iPhones. Still appaled how easily people took this stunt as proof the iPhone is not a surveillance end point.
gilgongo 11y ago
The only people who don't notify software developers of exploits they find in their systems are criminals. That the FBI are happy to act like black hat hackers in this is pretty amazing.
- qb45 11y ago
  There are probably few such criminals reading your comment now :) There are sensible reasons not to report vulns, like utter incompetence of the system's owners or the system's security standing in the way of your perfectly legal activities.
- TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
  I'd be pretty amazed too if I wasn't jaded by knowledge of the history of TLAs (Three Letter Agencies, or more broadly Three Letter Acronym). I bet TLAs have quite the collection of exploits and vulnerabilities they don't tell you about. I'm quite sure some TLAs even acquire exploits on the black market. As if they don't. I mean, for heaven's sake, "in Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA"[1]. And that's just the latest incarnation of this tired old worn out story. Governments are nothing but the criminals we've decided we'd be better paying off than let run loose, whatever good it's done us. That's why governments are, ostensibly, so against 'organised crime', just a turf war really. The only question left, then, is: What major bit of dumbshittery will government agency XZY slap itself in the face with next and get away with it. 1. http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-i...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
belorn 11y ago
Is it legally acceptable that FBI knows about a criminal activity and do not act to stop it? A security vulnerability like this will sooner or later be used by criminals, and the FBI are in the authoritative position to prevent it. Could future victims sue the government for allowing the crime to occur? There have been many lawsuits where an ISP has been found guilty for knowingly host a copyright infringer on their network and not acting to prevent it, so it should not be too implausible that a government agency responsible to prevent crime is held to equal or higher standard.
- rtpg 11y ago
  That's a strange standard to hold the FBI up to. Should police, upon seeing an unlocked car, promptly find the owner and inform them? Of course that's a nice thing to do as people, but it's not really a legal obligation.
  - belorn 11y ago
    If the police has reason to expect that the car will be the subject of a crime, then I think they should be legally required to act. I know that in some places, the courts has ruled a police officer do not have a legal duty to protect citizens from harm or prevent crimes. Strangely, in places where citizens that witness a crime has a legal duty to report it, its unclear if the police has the same requirement. But this is the FBI, so shouldn't they be held to a higher standard?
  - studentrob 11y ago
    It's more like, if the police identify an exploitable weakness in a bank vault, they tell the bank. Businesses and the FBI usually work together to increase the safety of the public. In this case, there is disagreement about how to keep the public the most safe. The FBI does not understand that no government will ever be able to force all encrypted software to do key escrow with them. That misunderstanding is costing a heap of tax payer dollars and risking public safety.
drjesusphd 11y ago
Why are we believing anything the FBI says on the matter?
- studentrob 11y ago
  Because it's possible that they actually do think this is the right way to keep the public safe, and it is possible that domestic law enforcement's understanding of tech is a lot worse than we imagine. The NSA and the FBI are very different in their understanding of tech. Former NSA director Hayden already said he thinks the FBI's plan is no good. He also said he understands why Comey is pursuing this path. He did not say Comey is lying.
  - drjesusphd 11y ago
    I don't care what Hayden says. They lied about the motivation for the case, and they lied about a software update from Apple being the only means of recovering the data.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      A good portion of the public still believes James Comey. That includes lower level law enforcement officers. I want them to do their jobs well. Depending on access to encrypted communications residing in the phones of terrorists isn't going to cut it in the future. It'd be nice if they realized this future is coming very soon. We pay the FBI to be good at maintaining public safety. On top of that, the polls about this issue showed there is somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of the public who sides with the FBI in the SB case. If backdoor legislation is introduced following a terrorist attack, there is a chance it could pass. We're better off educating the public now about how encryption works and where it is used. The people we want to convince already trust the government. They will not listen if you include "the FBI lied about everything" in your argument. I think they could understand that backdoor-less encryption tech is better for our safety than backdoored encryption, given some explanation that one weakness exposes all devices. And, I think they could understand the impracticalities of enforcing what the government wants, given some discussion about how encryption is used in both commercial and free and open source messaging apps.
overloaded 11y ago
Can anyone find any actual citation for Apple wanting "the FBI to reveal" anything? There's quotes from an AVG spokesperson in the article, and the paragraph "Attorneys for Apple are researching legal tactics to compel the government..." but no specific sources. The author, on Twitter, said that "last week" Apple said they wanted to know what the exploit was, but the announcement about a successful exploit was only two days ago.
- fjarlq 11y ago
  Good point. The only official statement from Apple that I can find is this one, which doesn't ask the FBI to reveal or do anything: http://www.loopinsight.com/2016/03/28/apples-statement-on-government-dismissal-of-iphone-case/ http://www.loopinsight.com/2016/03/28/apples-statement-on-go... (I couldn't find this statement on apple.com, but it has been relayed by many news sources so I believe it is indeed official.)
bhouston 11y ago
Isn't this how it was done: > Apple already knows, and you can be sure the engineers already knew the mechanism that can be exploited. They hired an Israel firm to remove the nand flash, clone it, and brute force the pin code by trying each combination until valid data was readable from the nand flash (combined with the hardware encryption key located on a second chip). It's not particularly difficult with the right tools and engineers. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4cj2pd/apple_wants_the_fbi_to_reveal_how_it_hacked_the/d1iqog9 https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4cj2pd/apple_wan...
- viraptor 11y ago
  It's speculation. Maybe it was, maybe not. Random reddit comment from a person unrelated to FBI is unlikely to know. Also the "combined with the hardware encryption key located on a second chip" is handwaving away a lot of complexity. That's actually the only hard part in this scenario.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
return0 11y ago
If they want to find out, they should buy Cellebrite.
bigB 11y ago
This whole article is hilarious. At no stage whatsoever has Apple actually made a statement that confirms they haven even requested the method used. All this laughable article could provide is "quotes" from an antivirus company. Apple don't really care how they did it, or even if they really did crack it, just as long as they didn't have to be seen doing it for the government.
- leecarraher 11y ago
  i'm sure they care how it was done so they can fix the security flaw in future ios devices. but they also have very little legal recourse to get them to do so (maybe dmca reverse engineering provisions, but thats never been very viable in court). Furthermore, it's fairly likely they've circumvented the issue via the secure enclave enhancements in newer ios devices. so why would they waste a bunch of money on litigation, to argue a position that if they win only results in exposing their security team of some minor incompetence that may not even be an issue in current generation devices.
dexterdog 11y ago
Does anybody really believe that Apple doesn't either know how it was done or at least know it was one of X ways (with X being the number of exploits they know about internally that could have been used)? This whole circle jerk was about the govt compelling Apple to bypass its own security so that they can do it in every other case to come after.
justdream 11y ago
Would the TPP be a possible basis for legal action in a case like this?
halis 11y ago
I'm skeptical that the FBI hacked into the iPhone. Seems more like a 4th grader trying to save face.
bl4ckdu5t 11y ago
We don't know for sure if the FBI is only bluffing about hacking the phone just to not have to drag the case further
cordite 11y ago
The FBI usually went with the no-stones-left-unturned analogy. But did they actually find anything meaningful under this stone that they accidentally locked up?

157 points by salmonet 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

what if they just guessed the passcode based on numbers found associated with the couple or some other means of figuring it out like discovering a commonly used pin?

riotdash 11y ago

Ask these guys, not the feds: http://www.cellebrite.com/Pages/cellebrite-solution-for-locked-apple-devices-running-ios-8x http://www.cellebrite.com/Pages/cellebrite-solution-for-lock... You are welcome Apple.

crb 11y ago
The San Bernadino phone was running iOS 9. (It's reasonable to assume that if there was a vulnerability in 8.x, Apple would want to have fixed it in 9.)
- camillomiller 11y ago
  Cellebrite is a multinational with lots of resources. I would expect they already had some solution for iOS 9 devices in the pipeline, which was not ready to be made into a public product yet. Nonetheless they were more than happy to field test it with the San Bernardino terrorist's phone. DISCLAIMER: That's my speculation, based on my own coverage of the whole Apple-FBI thing.
- LeifCarrotson 11y ago
  But the San Bernardino phone did not have the secure enclave that new iOS 9 devices have. If the vulnerability is unworkable on devices with the secure enclave, well, they've already fixed it.
- Swannie 11y ago
  Is it possible to downgrade to iOS 8 without the pin?
sjwright 11y ago
If that's the case (and we can only guess) I can't possibly imagine that Cellebrite would offer Apple a way to make their services less useful than they already are.
jonah 11y ago
"without any hardware intervention". Hmm, does this mean they're not desoldering the flash?
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Cellebrite's full portfolio is not public what you see on their site are very basic turn-key solutions. They have a bespoke service called CAIS as well as few other unlisted services which they do not advertise openly given their sensitive nature. Their turn-key forensic solutions are tailored for general law enforcement and the public sector (private investigators, corporate security, law firms etc.), CAIS is usually offered to state security agencies and they have other services which are tailored towards intelligence and national security agencies.
  - jonah 11y ago
    > Cellebrite's full portfolio is not public So, basically their own collection of zero-days and techniques? Do they come up with them themselves, or do they buy them on the exploit market?
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      Probably both, not necessarily "zero-days" at least not in the traditional sense but various attacks and services that they might not want to advertise publicly for various reasons (don't forget that as an Israeli company their exports are controlled by the Israeli Defense Ministry). In some cases they might also offer a bring your own exploit type of service where they integrate client provided exploits with their existing platforms and solutions. Some of their products are also hardware focused, their "Chinese SOC" attacks are mostly OS agnostic (Mediatek chipsets for example are attacked via some generic DMA exploit) and are designed specifically to assist LEA's to breaking into cheap disposable phone. http://www.cellebrite.com/Media/Default/Files/Forensics/Data-Sheets/UFED-Chinex-DataSheet.pdf http://www.cellebrite.com/Media/Default/Files/Forensics/Data... But like any company these days it pretty much depends on what you want to buy for them they'll offer you a wide range of services from idiot proof turn key solutions to bespoke consulting like services, if they do have the ability to break into iOS9 or a more generic way to attack Apple SOC's they will not advertise it openly, at least not initially from previous experience with them it can take months and even years between them actually have an initial capability to it being integrated into their open commercial products. This isn't only done for secrecy reasons this is also pragmatic some attacks might be very case dependent, expensive, or even potentially destructive and so wont be offered with their normal forensic services (that have to comply to very strict forensic standards, including being able to openly explain how access was achieved to ensure that the data has actually been extracted correctly and chain of custody maintained) so quite often what they are offered under their more bespoke services are capabilities that are not (yet) commercially viable for general forensic use. In this case the FBI or any other agency is quite likely not to care about presenting the information as evidence in court, and their risk appetite might also be considerably greater. Your local police/DA on the other hand must be able to present the evidence and defend how it was obtained in court so the tool has to be certified (NIST in case of US courts) and the extraction method has to be defensible in court. However if we are talking about zero-days then those also cannot be offered as part of their commercial turn key solutions (court defensibility aside) because the solutions they provide have to be reliable and consistent. Zero-days for the most part are likely to be fixed quicker than their products can be shipped yet alone certified so anything which is that volatile will only be offered via their "consulting service" and the clients will be quite aware that they are paying for something that might be a one off solution only.

dcw303 11y ago

Deduction should make it pretty simple. There are a large number of phones out that law agencies want hacked. If the FBI completely stops asking for assistance, Apple can consider the exploit still active.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Mikhail_Edoshin 11y ago

I guess they should file a motion or how does this work to force FBI to disclose what they did :) It's only fair to give the FBI a chance to write a public letter too.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

incepted 11y ago

I really find this whole thing hilarious. First, it's Apple sticking it to the FBI by making a stand for privacy and receiving public accolades doing so as a champion of privacy. The FBI is the bad guy trying to invade our privacy. Now, it's the FBI sending a giant "screw you" to Apple by not only letting them know they were able to hack into the phone without Apple's help but at the same time, making a mockery of Apple's entire security claims. And now, Apple is in panic mode, slowly realizing that they went from being the hero of privacy in the modern age to the company that wasn't able to secure its phone from the FBI. From the FBI. Of all things. No wonder they are freaking out and they want to know how the FBI did it. Except that if I were them, I certainly wouldn't ask that publicly, I would at least pretend I know how the FBI did it and claim that it's already fixed in the next version of the OS. Which still means that tens of millions of iPhones are at risk today and will be for months, but at least, you get to pretend that you're ahead of the FBI while right now, it's pretty obvious that Apple has been outsmarted by a government agency. The bottom line is that in this line of work, it pays to be discreet and humble.

bitJericho 11y ago
You think Apple should have lied to the public?
- daxfohl 11y ago
  I assume he means this would be the best strategy (if kept under wraps) for Apple's reputation; the public's interests notwithstanding. Regardless, grandstanding twice just looks foolish for everyone except the FBI.
  - mcphage 11y ago
    You think this case makes the FBI look good? It took a month long media circus, made Apple look like the good guys, pissing off most of the tech community—all to unlock a single phone that likely has no useful data on it. If they had wanted to advertise their ability to unlock iPhones, they would have just done it, and done a press conference about how they unlocked it and got lots of good information. Instead, they look like they were desperately scrambling, before some "Canadian girlfriend" showed up at the last minute and saved them from looked even more foolish. Sure, from Apple's side, it would have been better had it gone to court and been established that the government isn't allowed to do what it was trying to do, but... I don't see the FBI trying the same tactic again, and, here's the kicker—if they can't establish the authority to force Apple to unlock phones on non-secure enclave machines, then when they need a secure enclave equipped phone unlocked, it's going to be a lot harder to use the All Writs Act to force Apple's hand.

clort 11y ago

well it seems to me that now they know the bug exists, and they have the source code, that makes it easier to find. They have plenty of clever people at Apple I'm sure they will work it out. I guess the biggest problem really is that they don't know if this vulnerability exists in current versions or if it was already fixed. I don't know that they would normally bother to fix old vulnerabilities but they do need to work on identifying this one at least.

laurencei 11y ago

Doesn't this create a kind of precident for future requests to unlock iPhones on a newer OS? If the FBI/US Gov go to court saying they require Apples assistance - can't Apple turn around and basically say "this is what you said last time - and you worked it out - so we are sure you'll work it out again without our help"?

sjwright 11y ago
It certainly creates a precedent in the court of public opinion. Somehow I doubt the FBI are going to try this tactic again.
viraptor 11y ago
> for future requests to unlock iPhones on a newer OS It won't work on newer phones. The whole discussion is possible right now mainly because it's an iPhone 5c without a secure enclave. With (I believe) 6 and up the protection checking lives inside of an equivalent of PC's TPM. You can tell it "here's data and key, decode it" or "validate these bytes", but not "give me the internal key" - it doesn't support this on hardware level. (apologies to anyone annoyed at the simplification)

marincounty 11y ago

Which company, or group did the hacking? I was told it was an Israeli company? If the company is listed, I would be tempted to gamble my last $500? My luck--it will go down. (I am curious if someone they really did hack it.)

ccarter84 11y ago

To best of my knowledge, there's no law saying the Government has to disclose squat to Apple. Given the public bickering/brinksmenship going on these past couple weeks, I doubt they'll be inclined to do so, and they're probably also bound by NDA's from Cellebrite or whoever created the hack (if the Feds even know how they did it) There's some irony in here somewhere...

okonomiyaki3000 11y ago
Is it possible that the FBI has violated the DMCA?
- clort 11y ago
  Probably not, according to Bruce Schneier https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/08/dmca_does_not_a.html
  - okonomiyaki3000 11y ago
    Yeah, I guess I should have expected that.
- maw 11y ago
  My first thought as well. Thanks to clort for the link, even if I don't like what it says.
MatthewWilkes 11y ago
No law, but it is generally US government policy: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/fbi-breaks-iphone-and-we-have-some-questions https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/fbi-breaks-iphone-and-...

dtf 11y ago

If it was a million dollar hardware-level exploit, does it really matter? Much of the excited reporting on this seems to assume the FBI exploited an iOS software bug... do the press know something we don't?

jackyau 11y ago

Compared with android phone, it's still better for us. Encryption means it's hard to decryption not impossible to decryption.

_Understated_ 11y ago

Is there any way for Apple to compel them to provide the details? I would imagine that the Government has made the laws so they don't have to comply with them the same way we do.

bsder 11y ago

Um, Apple doesn't really care, but they are continuing to stick it to the FBI. If the FBI cracked the phone, then Apple can smack them with it when this comes around again. If the FBI didn't crack the phone, then Apple can smack them with it for dropping the lawsuit. This is just Apple saying "Fuck you, FBI, for bringing this lawsuit and then dropping it when things went badly. You're gonna sweat some more before you get off the hook."

dogma1138 11y ago
Apple does care because the public (mainly non US) cares. That said Apple can't really smack the FBI, in fact if the FBI tries this again on a different case saying that they've exhausted all options and that neither them nor any other 3rd party can unlock the phone that puts pressure on Apple not the FBI. And considering that the according to polling data only about 30% of the people say that Apple should not unlock the phone and 50% saying they should the public opinion doesn't really works for them currently. The FBI might be playing the long game, they'll unlock a couple of phones (or pretend to do so), even cooperate with Apple and when the time comes go back to court saying that Apple fixed any potential flaw, and that the FBI might've even assisted them in doing so and now they hit a wall and need Apple's help.

stefanix 11y ago

I am sure TAO has a rich portfolio of zero day exploits for iPhones. Still appaled how easily people took this stunt as proof the iPhone is not a surveillance end point.

gilgongo 11y ago

The only people who don't notify software developers of exploits they find in their systems are criminals. That the FBI are happy to act like black hat hackers in this is pretty amazing.

qb45 11y ago
There are probably few such criminals reading your comment now :) There are sensible reasons not to report vulns, like utter incompetence of the system's owners or the system's security standing in the way of your perfectly legal activities.
TheSpiceIsLife 11y ago
I'd be pretty amazed too if I wasn't jaded by knowledge of the history of TLAs (Three Letter Agencies, or more broadly Three Letter Acronym). I bet TLAs have quite the collection of exploits and vulnerabilities they don't tell you about. I'm quite sure some TLAs even acquire exploits on the black market. As if they don't. I mean, for heaven's sake, "in Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA"[1]. And that's just the latest incarnation of this tired old worn out story. Governments are nothing but the criminals we've decided we'd be better paying off than let run loose, whatever good it's done us. That's why governments are, ostensibly, so against 'organised crime', just a turf war really. The only question left, then, is: What major bit of dumbshittery will government agency XZY slap itself in the face with next and get away with it. 1. http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-i...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

belorn 11y ago

Is it legally acceptable that FBI knows about a criminal activity and do not act to stop it? A security vulnerability like this will sooner or later be used by criminals, and the FBI are in the authoritative position to prevent it. Could future victims sue the government for allowing the crime to occur? There have been many lawsuits where an ISP has been found guilty for knowingly host a copyright infringer on their network and not acting to prevent it, so it should not be too implausible that a government agency responsible to prevent crime is held to equal or higher standard.

rtpg 11y ago
That's a strange standard to hold the FBI up to. Should police, upon seeing an unlocked car, promptly find the owner and inform them? Of course that's a nice thing to do as people, but it's not really a legal obligation.
- belorn 11y ago
  If the police has reason to expect that the car will be the subject of a crime, then I think they should be legally required to act. I know that in some places, the courts has ruled a police officer do not have a legal duty to protect citizens from harm or prevent crimes. Strangely, in places where citizens that witness a crime has a legal duty to report it, its unclear if the police has the same requirement. But this is the FBI, so shouldn't they be held to a higher standard?
- studentrob 11y ago
  It's more like, if the police identify an exploitable weakness in a bank vault, they tell the bank. Businesses and the FBI usually work together to increase the safety of the public. In this case, there is disagreement about how to keep the public the most safe. The FBI does not understand that no government will ever be able to force all encrypted software to do key escrow with them. That misunderstanding is costing a heap of tax payer dollars and risking public safety.

drjesusphd 11y ago

Why are we believing anything the FBI says on the matter?

studentrob 11y ago
Because it's possible that they actually do think this is the right way to keep the public safe, and it is possible that domestic law enforcement's understanding of tech is a lot worse than we imagine. The NSA and the FBI are very different in their understanding of tech. Former NSA director Hayden already said he thinks the FBI's plan is no good. He also said he understands why Comey is pursuing this path. He did not say Comey is lying.
- drjesusphd 11y ago
  I don't care what Hayden says. They lied about the motivation for the case, and they lied about a software update from Apple being the only means of recovering the data.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    A good portion of the public still believes James Comey. That includes lower level law enforcement officers. I want them to do their jobs well. Depending on access to encrypted communications residing in the phones of terrorists isn't going to cut it in the future. It'd be nice if they realized this future is coming very soon. We pay the FBI to be good at maintaining public safety. On top of that, the polls about this issue showed there is somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of the public who sides with the FBI in the SB case. If backdoor legislation is introduced following a terrorist attack, there is a chance it could pass. We're better off educating the public now about how encryption works and where it is used. The people we want to convince already trust the government. They will not listen if you include "the FBI lied about everything" in your argument. I think they could understand that backdoor-less encryption tech is better for our safety than backdoored encryption, given some explanation that one weakness exposes all devices. And, I think they could understand the impracticalities of enforcing what the government wants, given some discussion about how encryption is used in both commercial and free and open source messaging apps.

overloaded 11y ago

Can anyone find any actual citation for Apple wanting "the FBI to reveal" anything? There's quotes from an AVG spokesperson in the article, and the paragraph "Attorneys for Apple are researching legal tactics to compel the government..." but no specific sources. The author, on Twitter, said that "last week" Apple said they wanted to know what the exploit was, but the announcement about a successful exploit was only two days ago.

fjarlq 11y ago
Good point. The only official statement from Apple that I can find is this one, which doesn't ask the FBI to reveal or do anything: http://www.loopinsight.com/2016/03/28/apples-statement-on-government-dismissal-of-iphone-case/ http://www.loopinsight.com/2016/03/28/apples-statement-on-go... (I couldn't find this statement on apple.com, but it has been relayed by many news sources so I believe it is indeed official.)

bhouston 11y ago

Isn't this how it was done: > Apple already knows, and you can be sure the engineers already knew the mechanism that can be exploited. They hired an Israel firm to remove the nand flash, clone it, and brute force the pin code by trying each combination until valid data was readable from the nand flash (combined with the hardware encryption key located on a second chip). It's not particularly difficult with the right tools and engineers. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4cj2pd/apple_wants_the_fbi_to_reveal_how_it_hacked_the/d1iqog9 https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4cj2pd/apple_wan...

viraptor 11y ago
It's speculation. Maybe it was, maybe not. Random reddit comment from a person unrelated to FBI is unlikely to know. Also the "combined with the hardware encryption key located on a second chip" is handwaving away a lot of complexity. That's actually the only hard part in this scenario.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

return0 11y ago

If they want to find out, they should buy Cellebrite.

bigB 11y ago

This whole article is hilarious. At no stage whatsoever has Apple actually made a statement that confirms they haven even requested the method used. All this laughable article could provide is "quotes" from an antivirus company. Apple don't really care how they did it, or even if they really did crack it, just as long as they didn't have to be seen doing it for the government.

leecarraher 11y ago
i'm sure they care how it was done so they can fix the security flaw in future ios devices. but they also have very little legal recourse to get them to do so (maybe dmca reverse engineering provisions, but thats never been very viable in court). Furthermore, it's fairly likely they've circumvented the issue via the secure enclave enhancements in newer ios devices. so why would they waste a bunch of money on litigation, to argue a position that if they win only results in exposing their security team of some minor incompetence that may not even be an issue in current generation devices.

dexterdog 11y ago

Does anybody really believe that Apple doesn't either know how it was done or at least know it was one of X ways (with X being the number of exploits they know about internally that could have been used)? This whole circle jerk was about the govt compelling Apple to bypass its own security so that they can do it in every other case to come after.

justdream 11y ago

Would the TPP be a possible basis for legal action in a case like this?

halis 11y ago

I'm skeptical that the FBI hacked into the iPhone. Seems more like a 4th grader trying to save face.

bl4ckdu5t 11y ago

We don't know for sure if the FBI is only bluffing about hacking the phone just to not have to drag the case further

cordite 11y ago

The FBI usually went with the no-stones-left-unturned analogy. But did they actually find anything meaningful under this stone that they accidentally locked up?