5 ms·

Interesting thanks. I understand that its designed to be anonymous, but I guess it requires faith in Apple not complying to any forceful request from a security

Interesting thanks. I understand that its designed to be anonymous, but I guess it requires faith in Apple not complying to any forceful request from a security authority in the US to not modify it in secret.

CubsFan1060 2y ago
Of course that can be said for nearly anything you own. iPhone, android, tablet, anything that is Bluetooth (for instance, your car), etc.
givinguflac 2y ago
Given apples outright refusal to help the FBI previously I have more faith than other companies that they’ll do the right thing. But nothing’s perfect.
rgovostes 2y ago
Cryptographers who design these systems do consider the threat of a malicious future iteration of the company and thus try to reduce the trust in a centralized authority. Apple did fight in court to not have to crack the San Bernardino shooter’s phone, which probably didn’t garner much sympathy with the general public, specifically against government power to compel them to make changes to subvert security. They also publish a Transparency Report about government requests they’ve received and how many they’ve responded to.
- oefrha 2y ago
  > Cryptographers who design these systems do consider the threat of a malicious future iteration of the company and thus try to reduce the trust in a centralized authority. It’s no use. All the opaqueness to Apple relies on > This private key pair and the secret are never sent to Apple and are synced only among the user’s other devices in an end-to-end encrypted manner using iCloud Keychain. Which is trivial to compromise from Apple. They do their best to minimize trackability from third parties though.
  - Terretta 2y ago
    > Which is trivial to compromise from Apple. Explain this? Since both Apple and security researchers have worked on provable trust.
    - oefrha 2y ago
      Provable how? iOS software is closed source and unverifiable. New code can be added to send any data anywhere at any point. Explain to me how you prove closed source software won’t send data under its control ever. And we don’t even need to go as far as key exchanges, and forget about Find My. Maybe those are better protected and it’s harder for them to pull a sneaky without someone noticing. The location data of your phone isn’t in Secure Enclave and the OS can do whatever the hell it likes with it, good luck verifying a huge closed source OS which phones home all the time isn’t sending your location home. At the end of the day you’re trusting them (or just don’t care because you probably aren’t pissing off TLA, which is certainly true in my case), provable security is extremely limited.
  - snuxoll 2y ago
    iCloud Keychain escrow data is encrypted by HSM clusters that have administrator keys destroyed; if Apple tried to compromise a keychain by installing malicious HSMs users would first get notified that their data had been lost due to failed/destroyed HSMs.
    - oefrha 2y ago
      See my response to sibling. Explain to me how you prove iOS software can’t be malicious.
      - jsjohnst 2y ago
        Explain to me how you can prove… 1. You aren’t a troll posing as a human 2. That if you are a human, that you won’t die in the next hour. 3. That if you don’t die today, that the Earth won’t be impacted by an asteroid this year.
- lern_too_spel 2y ago
  It didn't garner sympathy with the public because they had previously lied to the public that they were technically incapable of complying with those data requests. After the government explained how Apple could comply, Apple shamefully removed the erroneous claim from its website without informing its customers who had believed that claim. All the big tech companies that have user data publish government data request transparency reports.
  - jki275 2y ago
    That statement simply isn't true. The government attempted to force them to write a new operating system for them that would allow them to get the data on the phone. This was never about the San Bernardino phone, everyone knew there was nothing of any use on it and everyone involved was dead. It was about getting precedent on record that they could force a company to backdoor their OS on a court order. They eventually dropped their request when it became obvious Apple wasn't going to roll over for them. Your post reeks of some personal vendetta against Apple, and has no factual basis.
    - oefrha 2y ago
      > The government attempted to force them to write a new operating system Which they are absolutely capable of, but refused to that time. People in this thread keep talking about provable trust when the software is fully under Apple’s control, which is just puzzling. It’s still a “trust me bro”. Whether you trust them due to past track record is something else. In fact, that you even need to bring up their refusal as evidence means you don’t believe they’re technically incapable of complying.
      - jki275 2y ago
        You're not understanding the issue here. The government wanted Apple to backdoor iOS at their command. Apple told the government to go fuck themselves. None of that addresses whether it was technically possible or not. You've made up a theory in your head about how it was possible based on what some dumbfuck government lawyer made up to file with a court, but that doesn't make any of it true. And again, none of this had anything to do with that phone. The government wanted to establish precedent that they could order Apple to create a backdoored iOS for them, so that they could use that to spy on people. They gave up when it became obvious Apple wasn't going to roll over for them and rewrite iOS so they could use it the way they wanted to. Your beliefs about some theory about Apple claiming something about "provable trust" or whatever are really probably unfounded and don't even make any sense.
lathiat 2y ago
If you want to learn more about how this all works in video form, there was a talk at 38c3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWQcgZfxkOM&pp=ygUMMzhjMyBmaW5kIG15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWQcgZfxkOM&pp=ygUMMzhjMyBma...
Terretta 2y ago
Which mobile phone maker do you have more faith in? Which telco? Apple have done work, and published tools for researchers, to make it so they can't "modify it in secret". The tools for security research community help verify that and "keep them honest". For instance, this is partly what the prompts about new devices or log in on other devices are about, there's a key exchange happening, and you get told. You can also exchange keys with Messages contacts to verify you're talking to them. You can turn on iCloud Advanced Security and Apple don't get even your backup keys. Also see the new Lockdown Mode. Granted, Apple can change their minds and become anti-privacy or pro data-brokers and ad-tech, but some of these proofs would break so folks would know. Anyway, if the government wants to know where you are, they can just ask the Chinese who've been watching Americans' cell phone identifiers move around. In seriousness, the telcos already sell* this position data to data-brokers and law enforcement have portals to just watch you scurry around, even without a warrant. * Sometimes telcos share your location data in ways that aren't "selling" so they can say they don't sell it. But the data goes and telcos derive value in exchange.
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  Just because someone doesn't trust Apple to build a worldwide live location tracking system doesn't mean they don't want someone else to build a worldwide location tracking system. There's an inherent risk to worldwide location tracking systems and while I think the genie is out of the bottle now, I would prefer there not to be a worldwide location tracking network at all. Airtags have become a commodity at this point and despite attempts to prevent this, criminals are already using them to follow potential victims to their homes. I know GPS trackers and a bunch of different find-my style networks existed long before Apple brought the airtag to market, but those didn't turn up in purses and cars quite as often as Airtags now do. Apple tries their best to make this thing secure and safe, but there's only so much safety they can add before the devices become useless.

CubsFan1060 2y ago

Of course that can be said for nearly anything you own. iPhone, android, tablet, anything that is Bluetooth (for instance, your car), etc.

givinguflac 2y ago

Given apples outright refusal to help the FBI previously I have more faith than other companies that they’ll do the right thing. But nothing’s perfect.

rgovostes 2y ago

Cryptographers who design these systems do consider the threat of a malicious future iteration of the company and thus try to reduce the trust in a centralized authority. Apple did fight in court to not have to crack the San Bernardino shooter’s phone, which probably didn’t garner much sympathy with the general public, specifically against government power to compel them to make changes to subvert security. They also publish a Transparency Report about government requests they’ve received and how many they’ve responded to.

oefrha 2y ago
> Cryptographers who design these systems do consider the threat of a malicious future iteration of the company and thus try to reduce the trust in a centralized authority. It’s no use. All the opaqueness to Apple relies on > This private key pair and the secret are never sent to Apple and are synced only among the user’s other devices in an end-to-end encrypted manner using iCloud Keychain. Which is trivial to compromise from Apple. They do their best to minimize trackability from third parties though.
- Terretta 2y ago
  > Which is trivial to compromise from Apple. Explain this? Since both Apple and security researchers have worked on provable trust.
  - oefrha 2y ago
    Provable how? iOS software is closed source and unverifiable. New code can be added to send any data anywhere at any point. Explain to me how you prove closed source software won’t send data under its control ever. And we don’t even need to go as far as key exchanges, and forget about Find My. Maybe those are better protected and it’s harder for them to pull a sneaky without someone noticing. The location data of your phone isn’t in Secure Enclave and the OS can do whatever the hell it likes with it, good luck verifying a huge closed source OS which phones home all the time isn’t sending your location home. At the end of the day you’re trusting them (or just don’t care because you probably aren’t pissing off TLA, which is certainly true in my case), provable security is extremely limited.
- snuxoll 2y ago
  iCloud Keychain escrow data is encrypted by HSM clusters that have administrator keys destroyed; if Apple tried to compromise a keychain by installing malicious HSMs users would first get notified that their data had been lost due to failed/destroyed HSMs.
  - oefrha 2y ago
    See my response to sibling. Explain to me how you prove iOS software can’t be malicious.
    - jsjohnst 2y ago
      Explain to me how you can prove… 1. You aren’t a troll posing as a human 2. That if you are a human, that you won’t die in the next hour. 3. That if you don’t die today, that the Earth won’t be impacted by an asteroid this year.
lern_too_spel 2y ago
It didn't garner sympathy with the public because they had previously lied to the public that they were technically incapable of complying with those data requests. After the government explained how Apple could comply, Apple shamefully removed the erroneous claim from its website without informing its customers who had believed that claim. All the big tech companies that have user data publish government data request transparency reports.
- jki275 2y ago
  That statement simply isn't true. The government attempted to force them to write a new operating system for them that would allow them to get the data on the phone. This was never about the San Bernardino phone, everyone knew there was nothing of any use on it and everyone involved was dead. It was about getting precedent on record that they could force a company to backdoor their OS on a court order. They eventually dropped their request when it became obvious Apple wasn't going to roll over for them. Your post reeks of some personal vendetta against Apple, and has no factual basis.
  - oefrha 2y ago
    > The government attempted to force them to write a new operating system Which they are absolutely capable of, but refused to that time. People in this thread keep talking about provable trust when the software is fully under Apple’s control, which is just puzzling. It’s still a “trust me bro”. Whether you trust them due to past track record is something else. In fact, that you even need to bring up their refusal as evidence means you don’t believe they’re technically incapable of complying.
    - jki275 2y ago
      You're not understanding the issue here. The government wanted Apple to backdoor iOS at their command. Apple told the government to go fuck themselves. None of that addresses whether it was technically possible or not. You've made up a theory in your head about how it was possible based on what some dumbfuck government lawyer made up to file with a court, but that doesn't make any of it true. And again, none of this had anything to do with that phone. The government wanted to establish precedent that they could order Apple to create a backdoored iOS for them, so that they could use that to spy on people. They gave up when it became obvious Apple wasn't going to roll over for them and rewrite iOS so they could use it the way they wanted to. Your beliefs about some theory about Apple claiming something about "provable trust" or whatever are really probably unfounded and don't even make any sense.

lathiat 2y ago

If you want to learn more about how this all works in video form, there was a talk at 38c3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWQcgZfxkOM&pp=ygUMMzhjMyBmaW5kIG15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWQcgZfxkOM&pp=ygUMMzhjMyBma...

Terretta 2y ago

Which mobile phone maker do you have more faith in? Which telco? Apple have done work, and published tools for researchers, to make it so they can't "modify it in secret". The tools for security research community help verify that and "keep them honest". For instance, this is partly what the prompts about new devices or log in on other devices are about, there's a key exchange happening, and you get told. You can also exchange keys with Messages contacts to verify you're talking to them. You can turn on iCloud Advanced Security and Apple don't get even your backup keys. Also see the new Lockdown Mode. Granted, Apple can change their minds and become anti-privacy or pro data-brokers and ad-tech, but some of these proofs would break so folks would know. Anyway, if the government wants to know where you are, they can just ask the Chinese who've been watching Americans' cell phone identifiers move around. In seriousness, the telcos already sell* this position data to data-brokers and law enforcement have portals to just watch you scurry around, even without a warrant. * Sometimes telcos share your location data in ways that aren't "selling" so they can say they don't sell it. But the data goes and telcos derive value in exchange.

jeroenhd 2y ago
Just because someone doesn't trust Apple to build a worldwide live location tracking system doesn't mean they don't want someone else to build a worldwide location tracking system. There's an inherent risk to worldwide location tracking systems and while I think the genie is out of the bottle now, I would prefer there not to be a worldwide location tracking network at all. Airtags have become a commodity at this point and despite attempts to prevent this, criminals are already using them to follow potential victims to their homes. I know GPS trackers and a bunch of different find-my style networks existed long before Apple brought the airtag to market, but those didn't turn up in purses and cars quite as often as Airtags now do. Apple tries their best to make this thing secure and safe, but there's only so much safety they can add before the devices become useless.