3 ms·

I think the core conclusion is perfectly sound. Apple is a capable company - they would not let the user discover malicious code unless they wanted you to find

I think the core conclusion is perfectly sound. Apple is a capable company - they would not let the user discover malicious code unless they wanted you to find it. They intend for people to reverse-engineer their systems and run it through IDA, Ghidra and Cutter. Tools exist to mitigate that discoverability, and I think it's foolish to assume they don't use them. The only safe assumption seems to be that they are hiding something. Proving the contrary requires tools we may never have.

lapcat 3y ago
> Apple is a capable company - they would not let the user discover malicious code unless they wanted you to find it. Apple is not capable of magic, or the impossible. > Tools exist to mitigate that discoverability Citation needed. > The only safe assumption seems to be that they are hiding something. Proving the contrary requires tools we may never have. You can assume whatever you want, but with no evidence whatsoever, I wouldn't call it "safe", I'd call it "irrational". Also, you didn't answer my question, which suggests that I was right about your not knowing what you were talking about.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > Citation needed. There are hundreds of commercial and open methods for obfuscating a program during compilation. Since Apple controls Ring 0 they can also obfuscate syscalls and network traffic if they want. I'd ask you if I'm wrong about this, but you already seem convinced. > You can assume whatever you want, but with no evidence whatsoever, I wouldn't call it "safe", I'd call it "irrational". It's perfectly rational. Apple already does this in China. We know the CIA, FBI and NSA have a common interest in weakening all domestic cryptography. Taking Apple at face value when so many other FAANG companies have been embarrassed by PRISM revelations is a fool's decision. It will be irrational once we know for certain that Apple doesn't aid spying on their users. Until then, I figure I'm a safe skeptic. Pending evidence, both of our claims are equally substantiated. Only the uninvested parties have nothing to lose here, though.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > We know the CIA, FBI and NSA have a common interest in weakening all domestic cryptography. To the extent that the CIA, NSA, or FBI have an interest in weakening cryptography, it applies at least as strongly (more strongly for most of them) to foreign cryptography, so I’d probably drop the modifier “domestic” from that sentence.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      You're not wrong about that. The history of their interference with domestic corporations is why I add that in, though. They do have an interest in weakening all cryptography, but the ones they're best-suited to compromise are the ones relying on domestic trust.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > There are hundreds of commercial and open methods for obfuscating a program during compilation. Obfuscation doesn't make reverse engineering impossible, only a little more difficult. > It's perfectly rational. Apple already does this in China. Does what exactly? Remember, the original claim was "Apple can remotely execute any code they want on your phone at any time." > Taking Apple at face value I never said to take Apple at face value. > It will be irrational once we know for certain that Apple doesn't aid spying on their users. Which you claim is impossible to know forever, making your belief totally unfalsifiable. How convenient.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > Obfuscation doesn't make reverse engineering impossible, only a little more difficult. Sometimes it works pretty well. It's easy money to wager the community doesn't fully understand iOS from a reverse-engineered best-guess. Especially if their adversary is a multi-trillion dollar company who anticipates reverse engineers. > Does what exactly? Violate their venerable "Commitment to Privacy". > the original claim was "Apple can remotely execute any code they want on your phone at any time." It is undeniably feasible, yes. They control the modem, have complete ring-zero knowledge and can send arbitrary data to and from your device. That qualifies pretty much everything needed for remote code execution. If they send data to the iPhone that exploits a decoding bug like NSO Group, then feasibly yes you could execute arbitrary programs on the device, using an unmodified OS image. Nevermind just a regularly installed backdoor. > Which you claim is impossible to know forever, making your belief totally unfalsifiable. How convenient. I've been wrong before! Let's both hope I've got their character wrong and we get to see the truth someday. Until then we're squabbling over unknowns. It's not my habit to put faith into the unknown, but to each their own.
- lrvick 3y ago
  You could reverse engineer everything on -one- phone and one version of software and be confident every single CPU instruction involving crypto sufficiently random, in constant time, and not being exfiltrated. This is a -massive- effort, that would also need to rule out hardware backdoors and use some cutting edge techniques, but say you did it. Now a dissident is targeted. Their phone is sent a special OS hotfix no one in the world has reviewed and that compromises the random number generator at a CPI microcode level that would take months of targeted reverse engineering to detect, then relevant messages are decrypted over the wire with the now weakend keys. It then reverts itself when done making detection that much less likely. Whoever has the signing keys make the rules... or anyone who can give secret orders to those holding the signing keys.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Now a dissident is targeted. Their phone is sent a special OS hotfix You're moving the goalposts. What you originally said, which I objected to, was "Apple can remotely execute any code they want on your phone at any time." In other words, Apple can remotely execute any code they want on my phone and your phone and everyone's phone now.
    - lrvick 3y ago
      Anyone that has automatic software updates enabled, the default, yes. And if you disable those you will not get security updates, thus allowing everyone access to execute code on your phone.

lapcat 3y ago

> Apple is a capable company - they would not let the user discover malicious code unless they wanted you to find it. Apple is not capable of magic, or the impossible. > Tools exist to mitigate that discoverability Citation needed. > The only safe assumption seems to be that they are hiding something. Proving the contrary requires tools we may never have. You can assume whatever you want, but with no evidence whatsoever, I wouldn't call it "safe", I'd call it "irrational". Also, you didn't answer my question, which suggests that I was right about your not knowing what you were talking about.

smoldesu 3y ago
> Citation needed. There are hundreds of commercial and open methods for obfuscating a program during compilation. Since Apple controls Ring 0 they can also obfuscate syscalls and network traffic if they want. I'd ask you if I'm wrong about this, but you already seem convinced. > You can assume whatever you want, but with no evidence whatsoever, I wouldn't call it "safe", I'd call it "irrational". It's perfectly rational. Apple already does this in China. We know the CIA, FBI and NSA have a common interest in weakening all domestic cryptography. Taking Apple at face value when so many other FAANG companies have been embarrassed by PRISM revelations is a fool's decision. It will be irrational once we know for certain that Apple doesn't aid spying on their users. Until then, I figure I'm a safe skeptic. Pending evidence, both of our claims are equally substantiated. Only the uninvested parties have nothing to lose here, though.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > We know the CIA, FBI and NSA have a common interest in weakening all domestic cryptography. To the extent that the CIA, NSA, or FBI have an interest in weakening cryptography, it applies at least as strongly (more strongly for most of them) to foreign cryptography, so I’d probably drop the modifier “domestic” from that sentence.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    You're not wrong about that. The history of their interference with domestic corporations is why I add that in, though. They do have an interest in weakening all cryptography, but the ones they're best-suited to compromise are the ones relying on domestic trust.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > There are hundreds of commercial and open methods for obfuscating a program during compilation. Obfuscation doesn't make reverse engineering impossible, only a little more difficult. > It's perfectly rational. Apple already does this in China. Does what exactly? Remember, the original claim was "Apple can remotely execute any code they want on your phone at any time." > Taking Apple at face value I never said to take Apple at face value. > It will be irrational once we know for certain that Apple doesn't aid spying on their users. Which you claim is impossible to know forever, making your belief totally unfalsifiable. How convenient.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > Obfuscation doesn't make reverse engineering impossible, only a little more difficult. Sometimes it works pretty well. It's easy money to wager the community doesn't fully understand iOS from a reverse-engineered best-guess. Especially if their adversary is a multi-trillion dollar company who anticipates reverse engineers. > Does what exactly? Violate their venerable "Commitment to Privacy". > the original claim was "Apple can remotely execute any code they want on your phone at any time." It is undeniably feasible, yes. They control the modem, have complete ring-zero knowledge and can send arbitrary data to and from your device. That qualifies pretty much everything needed for remote code execution. If they send data to the iPhone that exploits a decoding bug like NSO Group, then feasibly yes you could execute arbitrary programs on the device, using an unmodified OS image. Nevermind just a regularly installed backdoor. > Which you claim is impossible to know forever, making your belief totally unfalsifiable. How convenient. I've been wrong before! Let's both hope I've got their character wrong and we get to see the truth someday. Until then we're squabbling over unknowns. It's not my habit to put faith into the unknown, but to each their own.
lrvick 3y ago
You could reverse engineer everything on -one- phone and one version of software and be confident every single CPU instruction involving crypto sufficiently random, in constant time, and not being exfiltrated. This is a -massive- effort, that would also need to rule out hardware backdoors and use some cutting edge techniques, but say you did it. Now a dissident is targeted. Their phone is sent a special OS hotfix no one in the world has reviewed and that compromises the random number generator at a CPI microcode level that would take months of targeted reverse engineering to detect, then relevant messages are decrypted over the wire with the now weakend keys. It then reverts itself when done making detection that much less likely. Whoever has the signing keys make the rules... or anyone who can give secret orders to those holding the signing keys.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Now a dissident is targeted. Their phone is sent a special OS hotfix You're moving the goalposts. What you originally said, which I objected to, was "Apple can remotely execute any code they want on your phone at any time." In other words, Apple can remotely execute any code they want on my phone and your phone and everyone's phone now.
  - lrvick 3y ago
    Anyone that has automatic software updates enabled, the default, yes. And if you disable those you will not get security updates, thus allowing everyone access to execute code on your phone.