4 ms·

There are other practical indicators of how good things are. Apple, for instance, demonstrated that the iphone was sufficiently secure to provoke some novel leg

There are other practical indicators of how good things are. Apple, for instance, demonstrated that the iphone was sufficiently secure to provoke some novel legal maneuvering during the San Bernardino situation.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
Which was then circumvented by a third party. The legal maneuvering wasn't that novel: despite what Apple advertised, Apple could obtain the data off the device, and the FBI simply asked Apple to do it for them.
- ibejoeb 4y ago
  The point is that apple wouldn't do it. Anyone can buy a 0-day. It was not even a sure thing that apple could do it.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    It was a sure thing that Apple could do it — the FBI clearly explained how. It was such a sure thing that Apple stopped advertising it couldn't do it after the FBI showed how it could, with the quoted wording in https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/ios-8-even-apple-cant-give-your-data-nsa-n206171 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/ios-8-even-apple-cant-... disappearing from Apple's website (but not from IA). The only reason Apple wouldn't do it was that it was such an embarrassment for its marketing to be shown to be a lie by something that had made national headlines. As far as anybody being able to buy a 0-day, the price for such a 0-day is much higher for competitors' phones with better security.
    - ibejoeb 4y ago
      I'll be sure to read up on the latest regarding that matter. I could be outdated. I don't think it was something like apple has a key escrow. Regarding the price of a 0-day, it is clear that the fbi bought it. (maybe it wasn't 0d at the time but it was an exploit.) The cost is irrelevant considering it was a state actor. In context of this discussion, apple resisted. I'm all for more security and will take your recommendation for a vendor with more integrity. I think we have to weigh integrity vs capability, though. Good intentions don't confound tough adversaries.
sneak 4y ago
Apple had already provided all of the data from the phone to the FBI via the iCloud Backup that is readable by Apple. The rest was media posturing.

lern_too_spel 4y ago

Which was then circumvented by a third party. The legal maneuvering wasn't that novel: despite what Apple advertised, Apple could obtain the data off the device, and the FBI simply asked Apple to do it for them.

ibejoeb 4y ago
The point is that apple wouldn't do it. Anyone can buy a 0-day. It was not even a sure thing that apple could do it.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  It was a sure thing that Apple could do it — the FBI clearly explained how. It was such a sure thing that Apple stopped advertising it couldn't do it after the FBI showed how it could, with the quoted wording in https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/ios-8-even-apple-cant-give-your-data-nsa-n206171 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/ios-8-even-apple-cant-... disappearing from Apple's website (but not from IA). The only reason Apple wouldn't do it was that it was such an embarrassment for its marketing to be shown to be a lie by something that had made national headlines. As far as anybody being able to buy a 0-day, the price for such a 0-day is much higher for competitors' phones with better security.
  - ibejoeb 4y ago
    I'll be sure to read up on the latest regarding that matter. I could be outdated. I don't think it was something like apple has a key escrow. Regarding the price of a 0-day, it is clear that the fbi bought it. (maybe it wasn't 0d at the time but it was an exploit.) The cost is irrelevant considering it was a state actor. In context of this discussion, apple resisted. I'm all for more security and will take your recommendation for a vendor with more integrity. I think we have to weigh integrity vs capability, though. Good intentions don't confound tough adversaries.

sneak 4y ago

Apple had already provided all of the data from the phone to the FBI via the iCloud Backup that is readable by Apple. The rest was media posturing.