4 ms·

A defense team would need to show that the report had indeed been spoiled with such an exploit as demonstrated by the Signal team. Just because the possibility

A defense team would need to show that the report had indeed been spoiled with such an exploit as demonstrated by the Signal team. Just because the possibility exists doesn't mean it happened. If there is a significant evidence report from a cellebrite pull, it almost always means that it either successfully unlocked the device or acquired a full physical image or both. A report doesn't have to be generated by PA. A forensic examiner is free to use other methods to examine the binary. So long as the examiner can explain all the actions and any artifacts that would be left behind.

neodymiumphish 6y ago
Correct! Plus, most law enforcement seizes the device and keeps it until after the trial. If there were valid arguments against the authenticity of data in the extraction report, it would be easy to verify that data's existence by checking the phone, re-extracting the data using a known-clean UFED, etc. This isn't the end of the world by any means for legal mobile device searches.
- kstrauser 6y ago
  Except that if the device is compromised, it could have changed the data on the phone. The phone, as evidence, can't be trusted anymore.
  - neodymiumphish 6y ago
    Signal never indicated this in the blog. They said that the phone would have a file that could be used to victimize the UFED PC after the extraction completes. It's plausible that the UFED could be infected post-extraction with malware that re-establishes a connection to the phone to infect it in reverse, but this is extremely unlikely and it would be easy to determine (assuming the UFED still exists and hasn't been meaningfully modified since the extraction. For the UFED Touch, for example, the device runs the extraction and saved the result to a flash drive or external drive. This is then reviewed with the UFED software on another machine (laptop, desktop, whatever). What you're describing would mean that the extraction takes place (one-way. The Touch requests an ABD or iTunes backup process, phone responds with the backup files). The the malicious file in the backup pops and executes a command that runs software on the phone, thus infecting the phone with false data to cover the tracks and make the data on the report match the device. This is unreasonably complex, and I doubt any judge would accept it as enough to consider the data inadmissible. Let alone the fact that the data likely exists elsewhere in a verifiable way (Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Google Drive, etc), which the initial extraction results should give probable cause to the cops to obtain.

neodymiumphish 6y ago

Correct! Plus, most law enforcement seizes the device and keeps it until after the trial. If there were valid arguments against the authenticity of data in the extraction report, it would be easy to verify that data's existence by checking the phone, re-extracting the data using a known-clean UFED, etc. This isn't the end of the world by any means for legal mobile device searches.

kstrauser 6y ago
Except that if the device is compromised, it could have changed the data on the phone. The phone, as evidence, can't be trusted anymore.
- neodymiumphish 6y ago
  Signal never indicated this in the blog. They said that the phone would have a file that could be used to victimize the UFED PC after the extraction completes. It's plausible that the UFED could be infected post-extraction with malware that re-establishes a connection to the phone to infect it in reverse, but this is extremely unlikely and it would be easy to determine (assuming the UFED still exists and hasn't been meaningfully modified since the extraction. For the UFED Touch, for example, the device runs the extraction and saved the result to a flash drive or external drive. This is then reviewed with the UFED software on another machine (laptop, desktop, whatever). What you're describing would mean that the extraction takes place (one-way. The Touch requests an ABD or iTunes backup process, phone responds with the backup files). The the malicious file in the backup pops and executes a command that runs software on the phone, thus infecting the phone with false data to cover the tracks and make the data on the report match the device. This is unreasonably complex, and I doubt any judge would accept it as enough to consider the data inadmissible. Let alone the fact that the data likely exists elsewhere in a verifiable way (Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Google Drive, etc), which the initial extraction results should give probable cause to the cops to obtain.