3 ms·
It all boils down to what you see in the public. The FBI was trying to get Apple to create an iOS variant to extract data from a device, to the point where Tim
by Shank 9y ago
It all boils down to what you see in the public. The FBI was trying to get Apple to create an iOS variant to extract data from a device, to the point where Tim Cook wrote a letter refusing to do so and was willing to fight it in court. In a similar fashion, Apple has given talks and white papers on iOS security. In tandem with these well documented white papers and talks discussing the internal functions of iOS, we haven't seen any well known or trivial exploits appear to surface that demonstrate flaws in them.
In the case of the FBI fiasco, for example, we know that the FBI later paid Cellebrite for an exploit that allowed them to unlock the device. We don't know the details of how that happened, but the FBI had to reach out to an independent company and exploit an older device to do it.
To be clear: if they were lying about the lengths they go to with encryption, on device security, and user trust, this story would have been different. The FBI would have already had a backdoor or been able to trivially break the device, or they would have complied and created an iOS variant to break in. All we know is what they stood their ground on, and the effort that was required for the FBI to get in.
iOS 10 security white paper: https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
Talk about iOS security at Black Hat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLGFriOKz6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLGFriOKz6U
- lern_too_spel 9y agoWe know that they lied to customers claiming they couldn't help law enforcement get data off customers' devices. "Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. So it's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8."[1] After it became clear that it is technically feasible for Apple to assist with those data requests, they quietly removed that claim from their website.[2] [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/09/apple-expands-data-encryption-under-ios-8-making-handover-to-cops-moot/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/09/apple-expands-data-e... [2] https://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-requests/ https://www.apple.com/privacy/government-information-request...
- millstone 9y agoBy "technically feasible" are you referring to Apple's ability to build a software update that allows for quicker brute-forcing of the passcode?
- lern_too_spel 9y agoYes. Brute forcing pin codes can be done very quickly. Apple realized it was technically feasible too, which is why they no longer make that claim. That they didn't apologize to their users and offer refunds demonstrates the disdain they have for their customers.
- forapurpose 9y agoPerhaps both the FBI and Apple had a chance at good PR for their causes, and the FBI had a chance to set legal precedent, so neither admitted that the FBI could break in if needed. The idea that iPhones were inaccessible to highly-resourced attackers like the U.S. government seems unbelievable. Everything has security holes, even if they are expensive to discover or exploit; the U.S. government's resources are immense and the payoff - access to iPhones when needed - is clearly worthwhile. And in the end, when the PR debate had run its course, the FBI found a way in.