8 ms·

If a thief breaks in to a home by breaking the door, the broken door is still evidence of a break-in. Let the addition of keys have a noticeable effect. For exa

If a thief breaks in to a home by breaking the door, the broken door is still evidence of a break-in. Let the addition of keys have a noticeable effect. For example, some Android bootloaders show a 'Bootloader Is Unlocked' screen during boot, and almost every Android bootloader wipes the device when the bootloader is unlocked.

coldtea 9y ago
>If a thief breaks in to a home by breaking the door, the broken door is still evidence of a break-in. Let the addition of keys have a noticeable effect Err, security is about preventing attacks -- not about having evidence that they've happened.
- dungle6 9y ago
  Evidence of compromise (tampering, intrusion) is a major part of security. In some threat models it can be assumed to be unobtainable, but this does not support your blanket statement. Like, sorry, you're just wrong on this one.
- pritambaral 9y ago
  No, that's protection. Security is about foiling attacks.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    By preventing attacks I meant preventing them from being successful -- not preemptively preventing them from happening. Besides, select "foil", right click "Look up": (OS X Dictionary): prevent So, not a native speaker, and there might still be some nuance of preventing from even being considered (avert?) in "foil", and you could be technically correct. http://static.damnlol.com/media/5c5c06b2d9e1d4e9b66725f86dab099c.jpg http://static.damnlol.com/media/5c5c06b2d9e1d4e9b66725f86dab...
    - pritambaral 9y ago
      I meant the difference between protecting your data from destruction and securing your data against exfiltration. The former is trivially defeated (just breaking the phone, for example, is much quicker and less involved than forcing a factory reset), and not what we were talking about.
natch 9y ago
So, with your approach to device security, let's go with the device gets wiped upon the addition of keys. Then the attacker installs some apps including some special ones designed to spy on the user. Then they remove the screen lock, or set the password to something guessable or that turns up as a suggestion when Googling for "I can't get into my phone" and return the device to where the user had it last. The naive user finds their device, gets in, and notices their data is gone. This is real harm. Now they start using the device, and they are spied on, on an ongoing basis. This is more harm. I'd have to say your system as described isn't working.
- pritambaral 9y ago
  > and notices their data is gone. This is real harm. That's only slightly better than losing the phone itself. > Now they start using the device, and they are spied on, on an ongoing basis. This is more harm. This is more substantial. But if you are talking of the naive user who would not take notice of their Apple account suddenly vanishing from their device, there are easier ways for breaking in to their device without having to wipe it. Apple's system doesn't work to secure naive users against dedicated attackers. If Apple's system has any design for security (and I agree it does), it's for users who'd notice when their data is wiped.
  - natch 9y ago
    Your comment is a mixed bag. Have you owned an iPhone lately? It does work in a lot of ways. When you say it doesn't work against dedicated attackers, maybe you are thinking of an iPhone 6 hacked by an Israeli security company paid by the FBI? For one thing, most people don't have the resources of the FBI. And I think Apple has raised the bar significantly in the three or more generations since that device. If you were to own an iPhone and also apply some conscious awareness to noticing what it does on your behalf to protect your security, I think you would agree it has a lot of very effective measures to protect users.
    - pritambaral 9y ago
      No,I'm talking about dedicated attackers of any level against naive, unsuspecting users, as you brought up. The FBI case was against a user who knew the FBI was after their data, thus not unsuspecting. Social engineering, for one, is much easier against naive unsuspecting users than wiping their phone and hoping they wouldn't bother. For those who truly care about their own data security though, a wiped phone is an instant siren. ---- I have used an iPhone, though only for a short while, and not long enough to get used to it. I agree it goes a great, great distance to protect users against everyone not blessed by Apple. But then I have greater data security on my laptop and far greater freedom too, so Apple's offering doesn't seem like a good enough deal to me.

coldtea 9y ago

>If a thief breaks in to a home by breaking the door, the broken door is still evidence of a break-in. Let the addition of keys have a noticeable effect Err, security is about preventing attacks -- not about having evidence that they've happened.

dungle6 9y ago
Evidence of compromise (tampering, intrusion) is a major part of security. In some threat models it can be assumed to be unobtainable, but this does not support your blanket statement. Like, sorry, you're just wrong on this one.
pritambaral 9y ago
No, that's protection. Security is about foiling attacks.
- coldtea 9y ago
  By preventing attacks I meant preventing them from being successful -- not preemptively preventing them from happening. Besides, select "foil", right click "Look up": (OS X Dictionary): prevent So, not a native speaker, and there might still be some nuance of preventing from even being considered (avert?) in "foil", and you could be technically correct. http://static.damnlol.com/media/5c5c06b2d9e1d4e9b66725f86dab099c.jpg http://static.damnlol.com/media/5c5c06b2d9e1d4e9b66725f86dab...
  - pritambaral 9y ago
    I meant the difference between protecting your data from destruction and securing your data against exfiltration. The former is trivially defeated (just breaking the phone, for example, is much quicker and less involved than forcing a factory reset), and not what we were talking about.

natch 9y ago

So, with your approach to device security, let's go with the device gets wiped upon the addition of keys. Then the attacker installs some apps including some special ones designed to spy on the user. Then they remove the screen lock, or set the password to something guessable or that turns up as a suggestion when Googling for "I can't get into my phone" and return the device to where the user had it last. The naive user finds their device, gets in, and notices their data is gone. This is real harm. Now they start using the device, and they are spied on, on an ongoing basis. This is more harm. I'd have to say your system as described isn't working.

pritambaral 9y ago
> and notices their data is gone. This is real harm. That's only slightly better than losing the phone itself. > Now they start using the device, and they are spied on, on an ongoing basis. This is more harm. This is more substantial. But if you are talking of the naive user who would not take notice of their Apple account suddenly vanishing from their device, there are easier ways for breaking in to their device without having to wipe it. Apple's system doesn't work to secure naive users against dedicated attackers. If Apple's system has any design for security (and I agree it does), it's for users who'd notice when their data is wiped.
- natch 9y ago
  Your comment is a mixed bag. Have you owned an iPhone lately? It does work in a lot of ways. When you say it doesn't work against dedicated attackers, maybe you are thinking of an iPhone 6 hacked by an Israeli security company paid by the FBI? For one thing, most people don't have the resources of the FBI. And I think Apple has raised the bar significantly in the three or more generations since that device. If you were to own an iPhone and also apply some conscious awareness to noticing what it does on your behalf to protect your security, I think you would agree it has a lot of very effective measures to protect users.
  - pritambaral 9y ago
    No,I'm talking about dedicated attackers of any level against naive, unsuspecting users, as you brought up. The FBI case was against a user who knew the FBI was after their data, thus not unsuspecting. Social engineering, for one, is much easier against naive unsuspecting users than wiping their phone and hoping they wouldn't bother. For those who truly care about their own data security though, a wiped phone is an instant siren. ---- I have used an iPhone, though only for a short while, and not long enough to get used to it. I agree it goes a great, great distance to protect users against everyone not blessed by Apple. But then I have greater data security on my laptop and far greater freedom too, so Apple's offering doesn't seem like a good enough deal to me.