3 ms·

The Apple Secure Enclave cannot defend against someone who has the signing keys to the password software (or at least couldn't as of 2016)- that's why the FBI w

The Apple Secure Enclave cannot defend against someone who has the signing keys to the password software (or at least couldn't as of 2016)- that's why the FBI wanted Apple's "help" over the San Bernardino shooter. Apple said no, but could have done it- it was a policy choice of theirs to fight the FBI. Google has created a situation with the Pixel2 where they can't do that sort of thing even if they wanted to. And justified it without ever referencing "Search Warrants" or "Nation-state threat actors" even though that is the obvious driving force here.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
saurik 8y ago
> ...or at least couldn't as of 2016... The iPhone 5c came out in 2013 (and was a budget device based on the hardware design from 2012; the iPhone 5s--which I believe, though would happily be proved wrong, had already fixed this issue--actually came out at the same time as the iPhone 5c). I have no love for Apple (clearly), and I think they (and, sadly, the EFF) were being disincenuous at the time about the definition of "back door", but you are just spreading misinformation here: "as of 2016" would imply the iPhone 7 was vulnerable, which is a much newer device than the one from the infamous San Bernadino scenario :/.
- kobayashi 8y ago
  >I have no love for Apple (clearly) For those who are unaware, Saurik created Cydia, the package manager for jailbroken iOS devices, as well as a whole bunch of jailbroken iOS-related software.
- asfasgasg 8y ago
  So is the contention that Apple is already insider attack-resistant? Or is the contention merely that they might be?
jakobegger 8y ago
The phone in San Bernardino case did not yet have the secure enclave.