3 ms·
This is pedantic in my opinion. The main point of the article was that the FBI found a vulnerability. So before it was likely an unknown vulnerability, now it i
by llamataboot 11y ago
This is pedantic in my opinion. The main point of the article was that the FBI found a vulnerability. So before it was likely an unknown vulnerability, now it is known by law enforcement. The whole point of the article was that responsible organizations disclose vulnerabilities so that companies can make their software/hardware more secure. In this case the FBI is sitting on it, so they can continue to use it. Last week the FBI couldn't break into my iPhone. Now they /might/ be able to (it's a 6, so who knows if it is fixed). And Apple can't fix what they don't know about. Therefore, my confidence in the security of my iPhone has diminished, and it may be less secure than it was last week.
- mikeash 11y agoAccording to the article, the vulnerability was already known by a third party, and all the FBI did was ask/pay that third party to use it on this phone. I don't see how that act alters the security of iPhones. I agree that the FBI should inform Apple of the vulnerability they used. I just don't think that failing to do so makes iPhones less secure. Failing to do so leaves them as they are, and informing Apple would make iPhones more secure. I don't see this as pedantic, because it's the difference between the FBI actively harming us and the FBI merely not helping us.
- wkandek 11y agoI do not believe the FBI can legally report the vulnerability. They did not find it, they do not "own" it. They have used a service to get to the phone's data. Even if they reverse engineered the exploit used, it would be a breach of contract to disclose the vulnerability.
- chc 11y agoI'm not sure what "ownership" is supposed to mean in this context. Legally speaking, how does one "own" a security vulnerability?