5 ms·

How do we know there are not back-doors already in Apple's cloud storage (that the 5-eyes cult has access to)? This fight may just be theater the goal of which

by krunck 2y ago

How do we know there are not back-doors already in Apple's cloud storage (that the 5-eyes cult has access to)? This fight may just be theater the goal of which is to legitimize the view that Apple's cloud storage is secure and free from government snooping. Trust, then verify. No ability to verify? No trust.

matthewdgreen 2y ago
This fight is about providing encryption to the masses. If you want to use your own open source security solution, you should definitely do that (really!). But you will be one of a small number of people doing so. And a society where only a small number of "wizards" have freedom isn't a free society at all. I am very sympathetic to the idea that more components should be open source, and Apple's systems should be much more open (particularly backup.) But at the end of the day if Apple is compromised there is no open source solution that can save you. They design the silicon.
- seanw444 2y ago
  Is the society that relies on everyone else to make the decisions that serve their best interests free either?
  - knowknow 2y ago
    It’s impossible to live without depending on other people’s decisions unless you live completely isolated. It’s not “free” but most people are fine sacrificing some freedom for other gains. This has already been discussed for centuries, see Thomas Hobbes and the social contract.
- TheDong 2y ago
  > This fight is about providing encryption to the masses If apple cared about providing encryption to the masses, ADP would be enabled by default and you'd have to opt out of it. As-is, all your messages, photos, and so on are backed up unencrypted to apple's servers where they can read them at will. End-to-end encryption is opt-in, and I doubt most "the masses" even know a setting for that exists.
  - HnUser12 2y ago
    >If apple cared about providing encryption to the masses, ADP would be enabled by default and you'd have to opt out of it. Apple is also a company that needs to cater to its customers. If they enabled ADP by default and customer locks themselves out and goes to Apple, they want to be able to help. ADP is intended for people who understand what it is but nit savvy enough to run their own system.
    - protocolture 2y ago
      This is correct, apple has a very customer first support culture which has a famous history of blowing up in their faces. Internal metrics for support teams are almost entirely customer satisfaction focused, which built a culture of getting a result for the customer at all costs, which was very exploitable by social engineering. It doesnt surprise me that they dont want to let customers encrypt and lose all their baby photos by default.
    - TheDong 2y ago
      You can't have it both ways. Either you're providing encryption to the masses, or you're not. Providing encryption to the masses would in fact be telling people who lost their phone, or forgot their password "no, all your photos are gone forever, tough luck. Also, you have to make a new apple account and re-purchase all your apps".
      - sadeshmukh 2y ago
        You must have a different definition of "providing" because offering a service is definitely providing it. Apple makes "smart" devices that do what people want them to, and encryption is second to that. I think it's a fair compromise to have it easily available but not default.
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    I didn’t say it was Apple fighting. I’m referring to the broader fight. Getting Apple to deploy encryption by default is one outcome I’d like us to fight for. But if we give up and start poo-pooing Apple’s encryption because it’s not pure enough, that fight is over.
cpa 2y ago
I understand that's not your point, but the government is a massive entity: it's entirely possible that the intelligence community has capabilities that wouldn't be admissible in court and therefore are of limited use to law enforcement. Or that they might be unwilling to share them with law enforcement.
makeitdouble 2y ago
"Trust but verify" was political double speak from the start, it's fascinating how it still lives on for so long. And yes, we shouldn't put trust in corporations in the first place.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  "Trust but verify" is a description of speculative execution.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    I now need so badly a situation I can bestow a "Speculatively execute!" advice to someone. Otherwise before "Trust but verify" became popular, "Put no faith in words" was apparently the go to for Russian leaders. Not as catchy indeed.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      The reason why it became popular in Russian in the first place is mostly just because it rhymes nicely...
protocolture 2y ago
Yeah its a concern of mine. Australia introduced the concept of these laws with the Access and Assistance bill. The politicians were adamant it was necessary, however there were so many potential users of the system (Politicians, police, spy agencies) it never made a lot of sense. Fast forward a few years and ASIO gave a press conference where they admitted to only having used the powers under the bill twice. Which makes me concerned about who the bill was for and what it has been used for. Unlike the British version, any public information release leads to instant jail time, and it was unclear whether this extended to briefing legal counsel. I feel like, if the 5 eyes wanted to breach iCloud they would use Australia rather than Britain where it can be publicly contested like this.
- commandersaki 2y ago
  The AA bill has an explicit provision for not allowing weakening of existing security measures if supplying a TCN. That's the major difference between Australia and the UK.
dwaite 2y ago
Partly because they document the doors which are there for LE : https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelines-us.pdf https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelin... They also switched a few years back to provide signed firmwares rather than encrypted firmwares to ease independent verification, and have the Apple Security Research Device program to do runtime exploration with certain security walls turned off. (Supposedly creating these devices requires a partial factory retooling) Apple also only has per-device global builds, rather than regional builds which might obscure requested features. My understanding is that they take transparency measures to make sure it can be detected if a firmware was released out-of-stream, and anonymity measures to prevent targeting a specific device with a custom firmware. The Secure Enclave also requires the device passcode as part of an approval process for installing new device/enclave firmware; the underlying OS and security enclave are not meant to have the capability of being transparently updated/modified.
willtemperley 2y ago
We can never truly verify, because there is no such thing as perfect security [1]. However there is "Deterrence through Accountability. We can attempt to legally prosecute the attackers" [1]. That is what is happening here. The attackers are being prosecuted. [1] https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs5430/2017sp/l/03-principles/notes.html https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs5430/2017sp/l/03-princi...
cantrecallmypwd 2y ago
We more need FOSS (and supply chain) hardware, software, and (distributed) cloud platforms with encrypted all at rest and in-flight with zero knowledge storage (minus specific private keys and offline authoritative key locations, of course). The problem, of course, is the main platforms are ultimately owned by single point-of-failure (SPoF) corporations that can be leaned on, banned, or raided. This would require immense, deliberate investment to avoid compromise/slowly replace closed choices and to avoid supply chain attacks. And then, ultimately, it requires a socio-political bargain to decide whom to trust and why, such as, based on interests and leadership team.
HexPhantom 2y ago
Agree, blind trust in any big tech company is naive. But if Apple already had hidden backdoors, why would the UK government be pushing so hard for one now?
commandersaki 2y ago
There are some really good answers in this thread. But if Apple had backdoors they would ultimately be used and either through prosecutions which would make it obvious or reverse engineering which would be quickly discovered. This is slightly different to say AN0M phones that had a low IQ user base and wasn't actively researched by security people but the whole network was burned when they went for mass prosecution in jurisdictions where the evidence was admissible.

by krunck 2y ago

matthewdgreen 2y ago

This fight is about providing encryption to the masses. If you want to use your own open source security solution, you should definitely do that (really!). But you will be one of a small number of people doing so. And a society where only a small number of "wizards" have freedom isn't a free society at all. I am very sympathetic to the idea that more components should be open source, and Apple's systems should be much more open (particularly backup.) But at the end of the day if Apple is compromised there is no open source solution that can save you. They design the silicon.

seanw444 2y ago
Is the society that relies on everyone else to make the decisions that serve their best interests free either?
- knowknow 2y ago
  It’s impossible to live without depending on other people’s decisions unless you live completely isolated. It’s not “free” but most people are fine sacrificing some freedom for other gains. This has already been discussed for centuries, see Thomas Hobbes and the social contract.
TheDong 2y ago
> This fight is about providing encryption to the masses If apple cared about providing encryption to the masses, ADP would be enabled by default and you'd have to opt out of it. As-is, all your messages, photos, and so on are backed up unencrypted to apple's servers where they can read them at will. End-to-end encryption is opt-in, and I doubt most "the masses" even know a setting for that exists.
- HnUser12 2y ago
  >If apple cared about providing encryption to the masses, ADP would be enabled by default and you'd have to opt out of it. Apple is also a company that needs to cater to its customers. If they enabled ADP by default and customer locks themselves out and goes to Apple, they want to be able to help. ADP is intended for people who understand what it is but nit savvy enough to run their own system.
  - protocolture 2y ago
    This is correct, apple has a very customer first support culture which has a famous history of blowing up in their faces. Internal metrics for support teams are almost entirely customer satisfaction focused, which built a culture of getting a result for the customer at all costs, which was very exploitable by social engineering. It doesnt surprise me that they dont want to let customers encrypt and lose all their baby photos by default.
  - TheDong 2y ago
    You can't have it both ways. Either you're providing encryption to the masses, or you're not. Providing encryption to the masses would in fact be telling people who lost their phone, or forgot their password "no, all your photos are gone forever, tough luck. Also, you have to make a new apple account and re-purchase all your apps".
    - sadeshmukh 2y ago
      You must have a different definition of "providing" because offering a service is definitely providing it. Apple makes "smart" devices that do what people want them to, and encryption is second to that. I think it's a fair compromise to have it easily available but not default.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  I didn’t say it was Apple fighting. I’m referring to the broader fight. Getting Apple to deploy encryption by default is one outcome I’d like us to fight for. But if we give up and start poo-pooing Apple’s encryption because it’s not pure enough, that fight is over.

cpa 2y ago

I understand that's not your point, but the government is a massive entity: it's entirely possible that the intelligence community has capabilities that wouldn't be admissible in court and therefore are of limited use to law enforcement. Or that they might be unwilling to share them with law enforcement.

makeitdouble 2y ago

"Trust but verify" was political double speak from the start, it's fascinating how it still lives on for so long. And yes, we shouldn't put trust in corporations in the first place.

wizzwizz4 2y ago
"Trust but verify" is a description of speculative execution.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  I now need so badly a situation I can bestow a "Speculatively execute!" advice to someone. Otherwise before "Trust but verify" became popular, "Put no faith in words" was apparently the go to for Russian leaders. Not as catchy indeed.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    The reason why it became popular in Russian in the first place is mostly just because it rhymes nicely...

protocolture 2y ago

Yeah its a concern of mine. Australia introduced the concept of these laws with the Access and Assistance bill. The politicians were adamant it was necessary, however there were so many potential users of the system (Politicians, police, spy agencies) it never made a lot of sense. Fast forward a few years and ASIO gave a press conference where they admitted to only having used the powers under the bill twice. Which makes me concerned about who the bill was for and what it has been used for. Unlike the British version, any public information release leads to instant jail time, and it was unclear whether this extended to briefing legal counsel. I feel like, if the 5 eyes wanted to breach iCloud they would use Australia rather than Britain where it can be publicly contested like this.

commandersaki 2y ago
The AA bill has an explicit provision for not allowing weakening of existing security measures if supplying a TCN. That's the major difference between Australia and the UK.

dwaite 2y ago

Partly because they document the doors which are there for LE : https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelines-us.pdf https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelin... They also switched a few years back to provide signed firmwares rather than encrypted firmwares to ease independent verification, and have the Apple Security Research Device program to do runtime exploration with certain security walls turned off. (Supposedly creating these devices requires a partial factory retooling) Apple also only has per-device global builds, rather than regional builds which might obscure requested features. My understanding is that they take transparency measures to make sure it can be detected if a firmware was released out-of-stream, and anonymity measures to prevent targeting a specific device with a custom firmware. The Secure Enclave also requires the device passcode as part of an approval process for installing new device/enclave firmware; the underlying OS and security enclave are not meant to have the capability of being transparently updated/modified.

willtemperley 2y ago

We can never truly verify, because there is no such thing as perfect security [1]. However there is "Deterrence through Accountability. We can attempt to legally prosecute the attackers" [1]. That is what is happening here. The attackers are being prosecuted. [1] https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs5430/2017sp/l/03-principles/notes.html https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs5430/2017sp/l/03-princi...

cantrecallmypwd 2y ago

We more need FOSS (and supply chain) hardware, software, and (distributed) cloud platforms with encrypted all at rest and in-flight with zero knowledge storage (minus specific private keys and offline authoritative key locations, of course). The problem, of course, is the main platforms are ultimately owned by single point-of-failure (SPoF) corporations that can be leaned on, banned, or raided. This would require immense, deliberate investment to avoid compromise/slowly replace closed choices and to avoid supply chain attacks. And then, ultimately, it requires a socio-political bargain to decide whom to trust and why, such as, based on interests and leadership team.

HexPhantom 2y ago

Agree, blind trust in any big tech company is naive. But if Apple already had hidden backdoors, why would the UK government be pushing so hard for one now?

commandersaki 2y ago

There are some really good answers in this thread. But if Apple had backdoors they would ultimately be used and either through prosecutions which would make it obvious or reverse engineering which would be quickly discovered. This is slightly different to say AN0M phones that had a low IQ user base and wasn't actively researched by security people but the whole network was burned when they went for mass prosecution in jurisdictions where the evidence was admissible.