5 ms·

You wouldn't imply that Signal had framed you. You would imply that someone else had framed you using the same vulnerabilities as Signal has now indicated exist

by zaphar 6y ago

You wouldn't imply that Signal had framed you. You would imply that someone else had framed you using the same vulnerabilities as Signal has now indicated exists. i.e. You can't trust Cellebrite because it's now known to be trivial to subvert their software. It's also difficult for Cellebrite to prove that there aren't remaining vulnerabilities in their software since Signal didn't disclose the problems they found and won't do so unless Cellebrite discloses the exploits they claim to be using in Signal.

upofadown 6y ago
You can't just claim an unknown entity framed you and hope to get anywhere. Heck, you could just as well claim that Cellebrite themselves had it in for you. Cellebrite has never claimed any particular exploits in Signal. Signal is exploitable in this particular way for entirely obvious and common reasons.
- zaphar 6y ago
  Why would it have to be an unknown entity? I imagine in at least some court cases there could be potential antagonists to pin the blame on.
- novok 6y ago
  You can claim that by having signal on your phone, it probably compromised the evidence gathering and you didn't know about it and you don't know how, so that evidence is not trustworthy. Kind of like police opening anti-tamper / anti-shoplifting seals which ruin the item they are trying to confiscate with a large amount of dye.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- derivagral 6y ago
  You'd claim that the tooling used and thus the evidence is unreliable. Not because of yourself or anybody targeting yourself, but due to other actors attacking Cellebrite and leaving you as collateral damage. You'd base this on testimony from other (court-authorized) experts, perhaps even the CEO of a major privacy app. Would be an interesting trial to follow in the US, not sure I'd want to be the defendant though.
- rOOb85 6y ago
  It's about casting doubt on their software and it's trustworthyness. In computer forensics it's ALL about being able to verify, without a shadow of doubt that something is what they say it is. Chain of custody rules everything. This blasts a huge gaping hole in all that. He's proven that chain of custody can be tampered with and undetected. Files can be planted, altered or erased. Reports can altered. Timestamps can be changed. The host OS can be exploited. It calls all past and future cellbrite reports into question. Cellbrite can no longer guaranty their software acts in a consistent reliable verifiable way. It leaves doubt.
  - wglb 6y ago
    > In computer forensics it's ALL about being able to verify, without a shadow of doubt that something is what they say it is Mostly. The other side gets all the evidence that the opposing side sees. They both get a chance to review it. > Chain of custody rules everything. Agree. > This blasts a huge gaping hole in all that. Not really. The analysis goes in two steps. One is to pull all the data from the phone, in a chain-of-custody manner. In an adversarial case, both sides can do this. The collection and analysis go into two steps. First is moving the data to windows box. Next is the analysis. As I understand it, the analysis portion is where things can explode. Then, if in the hands of someone skilled in forensics, the extracted data would be saved in some other device, possibly to be shared with the other side. Then the risky, potentially explosive analysis would be done. It is very unlikely that all previous cases exist on that device and nowhere else. Therefore, > It calls all past and future cellbrite reports into question. is not true, as the extracted files are likely not on the collecting windows device. In any case, it is not clear how many uses of this device are in actual legal environments.
    - hvis 6y ago
      > As I understand it, the analysis portion is where things can explode. This very blog post says they have found similar vulnerabilities in both steps.
      - upofadown 6y ago
PeterisP 6y ago
It depends on the standard of reliability required. A good defence legal team might use this to argue that the phone data wouldn't be sufficient evidence in the actual criminal proceedings, you do need to prove things beyond all reasonable doubt there; however, even with all these caveats it would be sufficient to use that phone data for investigative purposes and as probable cause for getting a warrant for something else, and then use that for the actual conviction. For example, let's say they extract the Signal message data from your phone. You successfully convince everyone that this data might have been the result of some tampering. However, that doesn't prevent investigators from using that message history to find the other person, and get them to testify against you.
- filmgirlcw 6y ago
  That’s not true, at least if we’re talking fourth amendment issues in the US. If the evidence was thrown out, any additional information gleaned from that evidence could be thrown out too. And in a scenario like what you described, it likely would. That’s not a guarantee, of course, and it could be possible for police to corroborate that you had contact with someone else in another way (through records from a wireless carrier or by doing shoe leather investigative work) and use try to get data on that person to get them to testify, but if their only link was through messages that had been deemed inadmissible, they can’t use that witness. The more likely question in a scenario you describe would be if the compromised Signal data would be enough to raise questions about the validity of all the data on the device. I.e., if Signal is out, can they use information from WhatsApp or iMessage or whatever. Past case law would suggest that once compromised, all of the evidence from the device is compromised — but a judge might rule otherwise. It would be cool if Signal or another app could use those exploits they’ve uncovered to inject randomized data into the data stores of other messaging applications too. You know. Just as an experiment.
  - neodymiumphish 6y ago
    Wrong. You're talking about "fruit of the poisonous tree", which only involves evidence found as a result of an illegal search. A legal search that results in "false" evidence, which is later used to find "real" evidence will still meet sufficiency in court, because the now-"real" evidence is still admissible, just like the "false" evidence is admissible. It's just that the defense can have the "false" evidence thrown out because it's not verifiable. In the example being discussed here, it's absolutely still fine for LE and there isn't a need to find a secondary source that side-steps the FOTPT argument. In fact, I could drag a subject into an interview, take his phone and present a warrant to search his phone. If he refuses to unlock the phone, I can say "fine, we'll use our special software instead" and take it back to another room. After the interview, I give him back his phone and immediately bring in his co-conspirator. If I show the conspirator fake messages between him and my first subject and get him to testify against my subject, that's still admissible. If this is the case, why would using potentially-false/unverifiable Cellebrite data be inadmissible?

by zaphar 6y ago

upofadown 6y ago

You can't just claim an unknown entity framed you and hope to get anywhere. Heck, you could just as well claim that Cellebrite themselves had it in for you. Cellebrite has never claimed any particular exploits in Signal. Signal is exploitable in this particular way for entirely obvious and common reasons.

zaphar 6y ago
Why would it have to be an unknown entity? I imagine in at least some court cases there could be potential antagonists to pin the blame on.
novok 6y ago
You can claim that by having signal on your phone, it probably compromised the evidence gathering and you didn't know about it and you don't know how, so that evidence is not trustworthy. Kind of like police opening anti-tamper / anti-shoplifting seals which ruin the item they are trying to confiscate with a large amount of dye.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
derivagral 6y ago
You'd claim that the tooling used and thus the evidence is unreliable. Not because of yourself or anybody targeting yourself, but due to other actors attacking Cellebrite and leaving you as collateral damage. You'd base this on testimony from other (court-authorized) experts, perhaps even the CEO of a major privacy app. Would be an interesting trial to follow in the US, not sure I'd want to be the defendant though.
rOOb85 6y ago
It's about casting doubt on their software and it's trustworthyness. In computer forensics it's ALL about being able to verify, without a shadow of doubt that something is what they say it is. Chain of custody rules everything. This blasts a huge gaping hole in all that. He's proven that chain of custody can be tampered with and undetected. Files can be planted, altered or erased. Reports can altered. Timestamps can be changed. The host OS can be exploited. It calls all past and future cellbrite reports into question. Cellbrite can no longer guaranty their software acts in a consistent reliable verifiable way. It leaves doubt.
- wglb 6y ago
  > In computer forensics it's ALL about being able to verify, without a shadow of doubt that something is what they say it is Mostly. The other side gets all the evidence that the opposing side sees. They both get a chance to review it. > Chain of custody rules everything. Agree. > This blasts a huge gaping hole in all that. Not really. The analysis goes in two steps. One is to pull all the data from the phone, in a chain-of-custody manner. In an adversarial case, both sides can do this. The collection and analysis go into two steps. First is moving the data to windows box. Next is the analysis. As I understand it, the analysis portion is where things can explode. Then, if in the hands of someone skilled in forensics, the extracted data would be saved in some other device, possibly to be shared with the other side. Then the risky, potentially explosive analysis would be done. It is very unlikely that all previous cases exist on that device and nowhere else. Therefore, > It calls all past and future cellbrite reports into question. is not true, as the extracted files are likely not on the collecting windows device. In any case, it is not clear how many uses of this device are in actual legal environments.
  - hvis 6y ago
    > As I understand it, the analysis portion is where things can explode. This very blog post says they have found similar vulnerabilities in both steps.
    - upofadown 6y ago

PeterisP 6y ago

It depends on the standard of reliability required. A good defence legal team might use this to argue that the phone data wouldn't be sufficient evidence in the actual criminal proceedings, you do need to prove things beyond all reasonable doubt there; however, even with all these caveats it would be sufficient to use that phone data for investigative purposes and as probable cause for getting a warrant for something else, and then use that for the actual conviction. For example, let's say they extract the Signal message data from your phone. You successfully convince everyone that this data might have been the result of some tampering. However, that doesn't prevent investigators from using that message history to find the other person, and get them to testify against you.

filmgirlcw 6y ago
That’s not true, at least if we’re talking fourth amendment issues in the US. If the evidence was thrown out, any additional information gleaned from that evidence could be thrown out too. And in a scenario like what you described, it likely would. That’s not a guarantee, of course, and it could be possible for police to corroborate that you had contact with someone else in another way (through records from a wireless carrier or by doing shoe leather investigative work) and use try to get data on that person to get them to testify, but if their only link was through messages that had been deemed inadmissible, they can’t use that witness. The more likely question in a scenario you describe would be if the compromised Signal data would be enough to raise questions about the validity of all the data on the device. I.e., if Signal is out, can they use information from WhatsApp or iMessage or whatever. Past case law would suggest that once compromised, all of the evidence from the device is compromised — but a judge might rule otherwise. It would be cool if Signal or another app could use those exploits they’ve uncovered to inject randomized data into the data stores of other messaging applications too. You know. Just as an experiment.
- neodymiumphish 6y ago
  Wrong. You're talking about "fruit of the poisonous tree", which only involves evidence found as a result of an illegal search. A legal search that results in "false" evidence, which is later used to find "real" evidence will still meet sufficiency in court, because the now-"real" evidence is still admissible, just like the "false" evidence is admissible. It's just that the defense can have the "false" evidence thrown out because it's not verifiable. In the example being discussed here, it's absolutely still fine for LE and there isn't a need to find a secondary source that side-steps the FOTPT argument. In fact, I could drag a subject into an interview, take his phone and present a warrant to search his phone. If he refuses to unlock the phone, I can say "fine, we'll use our special software instead" and take it back to another room. After the interview, I give him back his phone and immediately bring in his co-conspirator. If I show the conspirator fake messages between him and my first subject and get him to testify against my subject, that's still admissible. If this is the case, why would using potentially-false/unverifiable Cellebrite data be inadmissible?