3 ms·

I like 6 a lot, could be an avenue for legal refutation of obtained evidence (in a supposed crime or other illegal activity), 7 is a bit unnecessary.

• SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
  Not at all! 7 is actually a lot more subtle, I didn't get it at first. They're putting some files on some signal phones, somewhat randomly, and only those which seem like they've been in active normal use since before this disclosure. So likely none of the devices Cellbrite might own for testing, and no device Cellbrite might buy in the future, but some random set of existing devices in the field. And there might be multiple such files, so even if Cellbrite find one they can't be sure they've got them all. Now assume these files are (as somewhat implied) exploits that cause the falsification of data in all current and future reports issued by a given Cellbrite device. That means that if a Cellbrite has, after this point, ever scanned a phone with Signal installed it might be issuing false reports. THAT means that there's a reasonable doubt in any evidence obtained by the use of a Cellbrite device, going forward. That gives an easy out to defense attorneys in the US, where Cellbrite devices are used by police to gather evidence. Any defense attorney can now argue that evidence obtained from a Cellbrite shouldn't be admitted in court, since they don't maintain forensic integrity. This essentially spoils Cellbrite's entire business in the US (and any other country with similar standards for the admissibility of evidence). So Cellbrite has to find ALL the exploits in their system, and be very, very sure they've not missed any. Because defense attorneys will then try to call that into doubt. Etc.