7 ms·

Apple Says It Has Never Worked With NSA To Create iPhone Backdoors

57 points by IBM 13y ago

melling 13y ago
This is not a HN story. We skip most responses to the original tin foil stories.
- cracell 13y ago
  A story about a very large and popular technology company's response to allegations of them intentionally adding backdoors to one of their flagship products isn't appropriate for a technology news site? Edit: HN's on-top guidelines "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." Seriously, I would like to understand why you think this isn't HN appropriate.
  - president 13y ago
    astroturfing at it's finest
  - esrauch 13y ago
    I think you are missing the sarcasm; he's pointing out that HN votes up sensationalism and not the follow up stories.
    - Touche 13y ago
      This is on the front page of HN.
      - melling 13y ago
        When I made the comment it wasn't, and I had the only comment. It took about an 45 minutes to gain any traction, which can be verified by the age of the comments. The original story would have been on the front page in minutes, with dozens of comments.
        Touche 13y ago
        If the difference between a sensationalist vs. reaction article is only 45 minutes I think HN is doing fairly well compared to other online communities.
        melling 13y ago
        A story is almost gone in 45 minutes on HN. You'll often notice people complaining about posting a story posted a day earlier that didn't get any traction and is highly voted on resubmission. Someone has to start a conversion or it has to get up voted quickly. I was the 4th upvote and the first comment.
- nlp 13y ago
  It's a win for everyone when a seminal tech company responds to Snowden material with a serious response. It compels the public to take the outlet seriously (Der Spiegel), the material seriously (Snowden), and it contributes to the general tightening in the security field. In a word ... validation.
daegloe 13y ago
Anyone else notice that the bottom-right corner of the NSA doc is dated 20070108? Is that a month after the original iPhone was released or 6 months before? Either way, quite the implication if the claims are authentic. Plausible deniability can be an effective tool for a company too. It's certainly possible that Apple team members were indeed collaborating with the NSA (or FBI or some contractor equivalent) or that the NSA had access to Apple tech without the leadership aware of the specifics or even without any official corporate authorization/mandate in the first place.
- us0r 13y ago
  Never noticed that. Pretty sure it is January.
- Crito 13y ago
  "(civilian vernacular: mm/dd/yy or mm/dd/yyyy;[165][166] other formats, including dd Month yyyy and yyyy-mm-dd, are common or prescribed—particularly in military, academic, scientific, computing, industrial, or governmental contexts. See Date and time notation in the United States.)" My money is on January.
bananacurve 13y ago
Apple's statement: "Apple has never worked with the NSA to create a backdoor in any of our products, including iPhone. Additionally, we have been unaware of this alleged NSA program targeting our products. We care deeply about our customers’ privacy and security. Our team is continuously working to make our products even more secure, and we make it easy for customers to keep their software up to date with the latest advancements. Whenever we hear about attempts to undermine Apple’s industry-leading security, we thoroughly investigate and take appropriate steps to protect our customers. We will continue to use our resources to stay ahead of malicious hackers and defend our customers from security attacks, regardless of who’s behind them." Not that it will convince anyone around here, but at least they can be called liars if any evidence did turn up.
- Touche 13y ago
  It's interesting to say the least. If they are to be believed, what accounts for the NSA's claim of "100% success" with iPhones? Or is that just empty posturing?
  - bananacurve 13y ago
    100% success if you have physical access. You certainly do not need to be the NSA for that.
  - travisp 13y ago
    I can't find the exact "100% success" quote to put it into context, but for one thing, it's a six-plus year old document. It's possible that they had an exploit at the time. An exploit doesn't require Apple's cooperation. The document also doesn't claim this success remotely (only "A remote installation capability will be pursued for a future release", which really gives no clue as to how possible that was or is). We've always known that pretty much any mobile device can be vulnerable with physical access (that's what "jailbreaking" you phone is doing).
  - astral303 13y ago
    Given that almost all early iPhone OS and iPhone have bugs and vulns that allow jailbreaks and carrier unlocks, it's completely unsurprising that the NSA had a 100% success physically. For example, iPhone 3GS released in 2009 can be jailbroken with 2010-era latest iOS 4: http://www.iclarified.com/jailbreak/iphone3gs/mac.php?firmware=4.3.5 http://www.iclarified.com/jailbreak/iphone3gs/mac.php?firmwa... I don't think you even need baseband access to do all the spying. I think all of that can be done on a jailbreak.
sigsergv 13y ago
This could be true. Technically. You don't need to work with NSA, you may, for example, work with some another organisation tightly coupled with NSA. There also could be carefully planted vulnerabilities in the software, it would be extremely stupid for Apple to implement clearly recognizable backdoor. And of course they will deny anything always.
moron4hire 13y ago
It doesn't matter what they say. If they had, the law requires them to lie and say they didn't.
- sigzero 13y ago
  It does matter. Apple could tell the truth and let the NSA take them to court. What a nightmare that would be for the NSA.
malandrew 13y ago
They cannot make this statement until we get rid of national security letters. It's a statement that even the company itself can't verify as true or false. Instead they should have released a PR statement like so: "Apple's is unaware of any help it has provided the NSA in creating iPhone backdoors, but due to the presence of National Security Letters that would gag us if we had, we can neither confirm nor deny whether we have helped the NSA. If we have, no one in the company but those that aided the NSA would know. We urge the citizens of this country to challenge the constitutionality of NSLs so that we may be able to confirm whether or not we have aided in the creation of iPhone backdoors." That's the only truthful statement that could be uttered at this point.
- IBM 13y ago
  Apple is on the record as having never received an NSL. NSLs may prohibit you from disclosing information, but they cannot force you to lie (especially by one you've never received).
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    They can force you to lie. If not lying would conceivably tip off a subject of an investigation that they are under surveillance, than not lying would be in violation of the NSL. That is the entire point of the gag order.
    - IBM 13y ago
      "Apple has never received an order under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. We would expect to challenge such an order if served on us." So are you suggesting they've received a NSL letter about nothing in particular forcing them to lie in this instance?
      - moron4hire 13y ago
        I'm not suggesting that they have or have not received a NSL. I am saying, if they are in compliance with the gag order portion of the NSL, then they must always deny that they ever received a NSL for any reason. The government views not denying receipt of a NSL as confirming receipt. If they hadn't received a NSL, of course they would say they hadn't received one. If they had received a NSL, or course they would say they hadn't received one. The only reply to the question of "have you received a NSL" that is ever legal, is to deny receipt. So whatever their true status is, it cannot be judged from their own statements, as long as we assume that nobody at Apple gives two shits enough to stick their neck out and risk incarceration for violating a NSL.
eximius 13y ago
So the NSA hacked the iPhone so thoroughly without help? Yikes.
Zigurd 13y ago
My follow up question would be: Has Apple created back doors for law enforcement? The only way to keep spy agencies out is to made data inaccessible to everyone.
fit2rule 13y ago
How it works: NSA uses its immense resources to find jailbreaks. Finds jailbreaks. Sets up a 'hacker front' to publish jailbreaks/establish hegemony over the subject in the mindset of the iPhone-jailbreaking public. Regularly publish jailbreaks. Oila: a few million remote installations. (EDIT: .. on known-subversive phones. Only subversive types jailbreak.)

57 points by IBM 13y ago

melling 13y ago

This is not a HN story. We skip most responses to the original tin foil stories.

cracell 13y ago
A story about a very large and popular technology company's response to allegations of them intentionally adding backdoors to one of their flagship products isn't appropriate for a technology news site? Edit: HN's on-top guidelines "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." Seriously, I would like to understand why you think this isn't HN appropriate.
- president 13y ago
  astroturfing at it's finest
- esrauch 13y ago
  I think you are missing the sarcasm; he's pointing out that HN votes up sensationalism and not the follow up stories.
  - Touche 13y ago
    This is on the front page of HN.
    - melling 13y ago
      When I made the comment it wasn't, and I had the only comment. It took about an 45 minutes to gain any traction, which can be verified by the age of the comments. The original story would have been on the front page in minutes, with dozens of comments.
      - Touche 13y ago
        If the difference between a sensationalist vs. reaction article is only 45 minutes I think HN is doing fairly well compared to other online communities.
        melling 13y ago
        A story is almost gone in 45 minutes on HN. You'll often notice people complaining about posting a story posted a day earlier that didn't get any traction and is highly voted on resubmission. Someone has to start a conversion or it has to get up voted quickly. I was the 4th upvote and the first comment.
nlp 13y ago
It's a win for everyone when a seminal tech company responds to Snowden material with a serious response. It compels the public to take the outlet seriously (Der Spiegel), the material seriously (Snowden), and it contributes to the general tightening in the security field. In a word ... validation.

daegloe 13y ago

Anyone else notice that the bottom-right corner of the NSA doc is dated 20070108? Is that a month after the original iPhone was released or 6 months before? Either way, quite the implication if the claims are authentic. Plausible deniability can be an effective tool for a company too. It's certainly possible that Apple team members were indeed collaborating with the NSA (or FBI or some contractor equivalent) or that the NSA had access to Apple tech without the leadership aware of the specifics or even without any official corporate authorization/mandate in the first place.

us0r 13y ago
Never noticed that. Pretty sure it is January.
Crito 13y ago
"(civilian vernacular: mm/dd/yy or mm/dd/yyyy;[165][166] other formats, including dd Month yyyy and yyyy-mm-dd, are common or prescribed—particularly in military, academic, scientific, computing, industrial, or governmental contexts. See Date and time notation in the United States.)" My money is on January.

bananacurve 13y ago

Apple's statement: "Apple has never worked with the NSA to create a backdoor in any of our products, including iPhone. Additionally, we have been unaware of this alleged NSA program targeting our products. We care deeply about our customers’ privacy and security. Our team is continuously working to make our products even more secure, and we make it easy for customers to keep their software up to date with the latest advancements. Whenever we hear about attempts to undermine Apple’s industry-leading security, we thoroughly investigate and take appropriate steps to protect our customers. We will continue to use our resources to stay ahead of malicious hackers and defend our customers from security attacks, regardless of who’s behind them." Not that it will convince anyone around here, but at least they can be called liars if any evidence did turn up.

Touche 13y ago
It's interesting to say the least. If they are to be believed, what accounts for the NSA's claim of "100% success" with iPhones? Or is that just empty posturing?
- bananacurve 13y ago
  100% success if you have physical access. You certainly do not need to be the NSA for that.
- travisp 13y ago
  I can't find the exact "100% success" quote to put it into context, but for one thing, it's a six-plus year old document. It's possible that they had an exploit at the time. An exploit doesn't require Apple's cooperation. The document also doesn't claim this success remotely (only "A remote installation capability will be pursued for a future release", which really gives no clue as to how possible that was or is). We've always known that pretty much any mobile device can be vulnerable with physical access (that's what "jailbreaking" you phone is doing).
- astral303 13y ago
  Given that almost all early iPhone OS and iPhone have bugs and vulns that allow jailbreaks and carrier unlocks, it's completely unsurprising that the NSA had a 100% success physically. For example, iPhone 3GS released in 2009 can be jailbroken with 2010-era latest iOS 4: http://www.iclarified.com/jailbreak/iphone3gs/mac.php?firmware=4.3.5 http://www.iclarified.com/jailbreak/iphone3gs/mac.php?firmwa... I don't think you even need baseband access to do all the spying. I think all of that can be done on a jailbreak.

sigsergv 13y ago

This could be true. Technically. You don't need to work with NSA, you may, for example, work with some another organisation tightly coupled with NSA. There also could be carefully planted vulnerabilities in the software, it would be extremely stupid for Apple to implement clearly recognizable backdoor. And of course they will deny anything always.

moron4hire 13y ago

It doesn't matter what they say. If they had, the law requires them to lie and say they didn't.

sigzero 13y ago
It does matter. Apple could tell the truth and let the NSA take them to court. What a nightmare that would be for the NSA.

malandrew 13y ago

They cannot make this statement until we get rid of national security letters. It's a statement that even the company itself can't verify as true or false. Instead they should have released a PR statement like so: "Apple's is unaware of any help it has provided the NSA in creating iPhone backdoors, but due to the presence of National Security Letters that would gag us if we had, we can neither confirm nor deny whether we have helped the NSA. If we have, no one in the company but those that aided the NSA would know. We urge the citizens of this country to challenge the constitutionality of NSLs so that we may be able to confirm whether or not we have aided in the creation of iPhone backdoors." That's the only truthful statement that could be uttered at this point.

IBM 13y ago
Apple is on the record as having never received an NSL. NSLs may prohibit you from disclosing information, but they cannot force you to lie (especially by one you've never received).
- moron4hire 13y ago
  They can force you to lie. If not lying would conceivably tip off a subject of an investigation that they are under surveillance, than not lying would be in violation of the NSL. That is the entire point of the gag order.
  - IBM 13y ago
    "Apple has never received an order under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. We would expect to challenge such an order if served on us." So are you suggesting they've received a NSL letter about nothing in particular forcing them to lie in this instance?
    - moron4hire 13y ago
      I'm not suggesting that they have or have not received a NSL. I am saying, if they are in compliance with the gag order portion of the NSL, then they must always deny that they ever received a NSL for any reason. The government views not denying receipt of a NSL as confirming receipt. If they hadn't received a NSL, of course they would say they hadn't received one. If they had received a NSL, or course they would say they hadn't received one. The only reply to the question of "have you received a NSL" that is ever legal, is to deny receipt. So whatever their true status is, it cannot be judged from their own statements, as long as we assume that nobody at Apple gives two shits enough to stick their neck out and risk incarceration for violating a NSL.

eximius 13y ago

So the NSA hacked the iPhone so thoroughly without help? Yikes.

Zigurd 13y ago

My follow up question would be: Has Apple created back doors for law enforcement? The only way to keep spy agencies out is to made data inaccessible to everyone.

fit2rule 13y ago

How it works: NSA uses its immense resources to find jailbreaks. Finds jailbreaks. Sets up a 'hacker front' to publish jailbreaks/establish hegemony over the subject in the mindset of the iPhone-jailbreaking public. Regularly publish jailbreaks. Oila: a few million remote installations. (EDIT: .. on known-subversive phones. Only subversive types jailbreak.)