4 ms·

I'm not convinced it is entirely solved though. Didn't the FBI drop their request to Apple because they found a loophole or security vulnerability that allowed

I'm not convinced it is entirely solved though. Didn't the FBI drop their request to Apple because they found a loophole or security vulnerability that allowed them to accomplish what they wanted? I think at the end of the day, software has bugs. And if you have an extremely well funded and intelligent group (e.g. Equation Group) looking for these holes and keeping them secret for personal use and exploitation rather than fixing them, there are going to be ways for your data to be compromised.

ceejayoz 10y ago
> Didn't the FBI drop their request to Apple because they found a loophole or security vulnerability that allowed them to accomplish what they wanted? The phone in the San Bernardino case was an iPhone 5C, with the A6 processor. Secure Enclave was introduced in the A7. https://9to5mac.com/2016/04/07/fbi-iphone-hack-method-secure-enclave/ https://9to5mac.com/2016/04/07/fbi-iphone-hack-method-secure...
- Zombieball 10y ago
  Ah yes, I forgot this detail. Thanks!
greedo 10y ago
No, the model of the iPhone the FBI wanted to access didn't have the Secure Enclave.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
digler999 10y ago
I agree with you, although you were wrong about that specific Apple case. I don't trust "secure enclave" because it would be too easy for a TLA to infiltrate the chip foundry and backdoor the silicon. they can literally print money, circumvent the constitution using secret courts/NSL's, their resources are infinite. what would stop them from doing this ? Even if you couldn't infiltrate the chip foundry, you could order a bunch of the chips, reverse engineer them, and in a few months, ship a duplicate with a neutered "enclave". Then interdict the shipment to the phone manufacturer (this isn't tinfoil, it's been done) and "supply" them with your version of the "secure enclave". There's no limit to this cat and mouse game.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  That's not really an argument against a neural lace, though. You're just as fucked if you don't get one - they drop child porn on your laptop, or just disappear you.

ceejayoz 10y ago

> Didn't the FBI drop their request to Apple because they found a loophole or security vulnerability that allowed them to accomplish what they wanted? The phone in the San Bernardino case was an iPhone 5C, with the A6 processor. Secure Enclave was introduced in the A7. https://9to5mac.com/2016/04/07/fbi-iphone-hack-method-secure-enclave/ https://9to5mac.com/2016/04/07/fbi-iphone-hack-method-secure...

Zombieball 10y ago
Ah yes, I forgot this detail. Thanks!

greedo 10y ago

No, the model of the iPhone the FBI wanted to access didn't have the Secure Enclave.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

digler999 10y ago

I agree with you, although you were wrong about that specific Apple case. I don't trust "secure enclave" because it would be too easy for a TLA to infiltrate the chip foundry and backdoor the silicon. they can literally print money, circumvent the constitution using secret courts/NSL's, their resources are infinite. what would stop them from doing this ? Even if you couldn't infiltrate the chip foundry, you could order a bunch of the chips, reverse engineer them, and in a few months, ship a duplicate with a neutered "enclave". Then interdict the shipment to the phone manufacturer (this isn't tinfoil, it's been done) and "supply" them with your version of the "secure enclave". There's no limit to this cat and mouse game.

ceejayoz 10y ago
That's not really an argument against a neural lace, though. You're just as fucked if you don't get one - they drop child porn on your laptop, or just disappear you.