3 ms·
I remember that and that case was cool. I will leave my questions in place though because I recall Apple doing the same thing when a terrorist phone was locked
by LinuxBender 3y ago
I remember that and that case was cool. I will leave my questions in place though because I recall Apple doing the same thing when a terrorist phone was locked and they claimed to not be able to access with a big public show/fight it but turns out they could and so could the FBI. My theory is that they did not want the public to lose confidence in their phones.
- hathawsh 3y agoYeah, that Apple case was really interesting. I always guessed that Apple could simply push a software update (possibly to everyone) that happens to open a backdoor for a specific phone. I wonder if that's what they did.
- asynchronous 3y agoWhat happened in that case is the FBI went to a different vendor, and they broke into the iPhone either with a zero day they had developed or more likely, they just cloned the phone hardware thousands of times until they could guess the password.
- buildbot 3y agoYep, Apple had nothing to do with it. They do hand over iCloud data (which now can be E2E)
- buildbot 3y agoMaybe - depends on how secure enclave is built. It may have hardware defined limitations on # of tries for the passkey and no way to circumvent that in firmware even.
- theshrike79 3y agoApple would've had to create a specific OS update with a security hole the FBI could've exploited and distributed that. Courts couldn't force them to do that -> FBI went another way. This was in the iPhone 7 era IIRC. Currently their stuff is locked down even tighter and Apple has even less ability to hack anyone's phone. Barring a full-on backdoored software update targeted to a specific person - which they refused to do once already.