3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoIt 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 agoI'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 I could be outdated.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.