2 ms·

> Citation needed. There are hundreds of commercial and open methods for obfuscating a program during compilation. Since Apple controls Ring 0 they can also ob

> 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.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Let's both hope I've got their character wrong and we get to see the truth someday. How would we ever "get to see the truth someday" on your conspiracy theory, if the truth happens to be that there's not actually an intentional remote code exploit? That's my point: you've made yourself immune from the facts. You can't ever be proved wrong, by your own criteria of "proof", which posits that Apple always has the ability to avoid detection.

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.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Let's both hope I've got their character wrong and we get to see the truth someday. How would we ever "get to see the truth someday" on your conspiracy theory, if the truth happens to be that there's not actually an intentional remote code exploit? That's my point: you've made yourself immune from the facts. You can't ever be proved wrong, by your own criteria of "proof", which posits that Apple always has the ability to avoid detection.