8 ms·

Apple releases guidelines for law enforcement data requests

36 points by RougeFemme 12y ago

Karunamon 12y ago
tl;dr: * You'll be notified unless they are prohibited from doing so * The passcode lock means nothing. * Apple can tap your email and information from native applications (so call history, photos, SMS, etc), excluding iMessage and Facetime (Apple can't even access those). * They can't access information from third party applications * iOS4 or later only
- djrogers 12y ago
  "Apple can tap your email and information from native applications (so call history, photos, SMS, etc), excluding iMessage and Facetime (Apple can't even access those)." Misleading - Apple can extract that data from an iPhone at it's Cupertino Headquarters. Not tap. Significant difference in that for this LE would have to obtain/confiscate the from you, this isn't remote data extraction.
sprite 12y ago
Specifically, Apple says it can extract active user-generated data from native apps on passcode-locked iOS such as SMS, photos, videos, contacts, audio recording, and call history. Are they talking remotely or with device in hand?
- pilif 12y ago
  According to http://www.apple.com/legal/more-resources/law-enforcement/ http://www.apple.com/legal/more-resources/law-enforcement/ > The data extraction process can only be performed at Apple’s Cupertino, CA headquarters for devices that are in good working order. this can't be done remotely. Still. Why do they go through all the trouble with their encryption when they leave themselves a backdoor. Once a backdoor is in there, it'll be abused. Either by disgruntled employees or by everybody when it leaks.
  - sprite 12y ago
    Thanks!
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Osmium 12y ago
    > Why do they go through all the trouble with their encryption when they leave themselves a backdoor. I am no means an expert on this, so someone else please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember reading that it's not so much a backdoor as much as there are only 9999 possible 4-digit passcodes (and most people only use 4-digit passcodes). The iPhone hardware rate-limits attempts to prevent you from brute-forcing it, but Apple can reflash the firmware to get around this, thus allowing them to be able to bruteforce the PIN. Whether this counts as a "backdoor" or not, I'm not sure. If that is true, then I imagine there'd be nothing they could do if you used a longer (random) password instead of a simple PIN.
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      There is nothing Apple can do if you use something other than a 4 digit passcode beyond trying to crack your password.
    - nanofortnight 12y ago
      > Specifically, the user generated active files on an iOS device that are contained in Apple’s native apps and for which the data is not encrypted using the passcode (“user generated active files”), can be extracted and provided to law enforcement on external media. The keywords are "data [which] is not encrypted using the passcode".
  - matthewmacleod 12y ago
    I think you're misinterpreting the guidelines; specifically: Upon receipt of a valid search warrant, Apple can extract certain categories of active data from passcode locked iOS devices. Specifically, the user generated active files on an iOS device that are contained in Apple’s native apps and for which the data is not encrypted using the passcode (“user generated active files”), can be extracted and provided to law enforcement on external media. In other words, the only data which can be extracted is data which is not encrypted on the device using the passcode. So I don't really think this qualifies as a backdoor; it's just that physical access to the device allows them to retrieve unencrypted data.
Canada 12y ago
I don't believe iMessage or Facetime are safe. All this announcement says is that if you weren't a target then Apple can't retroactively gain access to previous sessions. Since the user can't see which keys are used Apple can simply add itself to any conversation. And since Apple can do it the FBI could secretly order them to do so. I also think it's only a matter of time until companies like Apple are compelled to use their remote update capabilities to trojan target devices.
zdiddy 12y ago
How I determined this ambiguous PR/ carefully crafted legal language to read is: 1.) Apple can only extract your data from [remotely, using a tool that only resides and can only be used at] their Cupertino HQ. 2.) Devices must be in good working order. Meaning = device doesn't have to be present to WIN
Evolved 12y ago
If you change the passcode from simple to complex and then set a 4-digit passcode it doesn't automatically try after you enter the 4th digit. It asks you to press OK. This means you could enter 4 digits but not know whether the passcode string length is 1 or 100 characters (includes all alphanumeric characters. Also, I'm just using an absurdly high number. I don't know what the max passcode length is.) before attempting to brute force it.
- rdl 12y ago
  If you have an all-numeric passcode which isn't a "simple passcode", it doesn't display length, but does show only the numeric keypad, indicating to an attacker it's only numeric. I personally would rather enter a 12 digit numeric to an 8 character alphanumeric. (Also included 80 character full upper/lower with numbers and symbols, but this is unrealistic given how many keypresses are required for modifiers.) <PRE> 10^12 = 1000000000000 36^8 = 2821109907456 80^6 = 262144000000 80^7 = 20971520000000 At 10 Hz, the first two options get you 3000 to 10000 years. A reasonable lower bound, given 10Hz on the tries, is 10^9 = 100000000 36^6 = 60466176 80^5 = 40960000 47-90 days. </PRE>
rdl 12y ago
Seems pretty clear how they do this -- booting the device off an Apple-signed image which just extracts unencrypted data and exports it. (I suppose it's possible there's some weird signed-apple-driver way to do this on a running phone, too.) Only Apple can do it because only Apple can sign an evil bootloader like this. There is a lot of room to improve the iOS security model against Apple/USG threats, but otherwise, it's still pretty good. A non-Apple-friendly intelligence agency would still probably be better off attacking the actual security element; DPA, physical attacks, etc. should be able to pull the key. I'd estimate this capability would cost $10mm to develop and maybe $10k per device to attack, which would be great if you knew your adversaries used iPhones. The biggest ongoing risk I see is that Apple could push an "evil" OS update to specific users if it wanted; if it can get the users to install it, all the hardware protections are irrelevant; you just get the user to enter the passcode, decrypt, exfiltrate. Solving that problem is really difficult without somehow having your own organization handle all OS updates.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  Seems pretty clear how they do this -- booting the device off an Apple-signed image which just extracts unencrypted data and exports it. (I suppose it's possible there's some weird signed-apple-driver way to do this on a running phone, too.) Only Apple can do it because only Apple can sign an evil bootloader like this. That would seem correct. However, given that some of the data on the device is also encrypted by a derivation of the passcode, this limits the scope of data which could be retrieved. A non-Apple-friendly intelligence agency would still probably be better off attacking the actual security element; DPA, physical attacks, etc. should be able to pull the key. I'd estimate this capability would cost $10mm to develop and maybe $10k per device to attack, which would be great if you knew your adversaries used iPhones. I expect you'd need physical access, and indeed that you'd probably need to uncap the AES chip to retrieve the UID - barring any unknown vulnerabilities. Possible, but destructive and not cheap The biggest ongoing risk I see is that Apple could push an "evil" OS update to specific users if it wanted; if it can get the users to install it, all the hardware protections are irrelevant; you just get the user to enter the passcode, decrypt, exfiltrate. Solving that problem is really difficult without somehow having your own organization handle all OS updates. That's the problem. The secure boot chain gives Apple ultimate control over the software on the device, and that requires trust.

36 points by RougeFemme 12y ago

tl;dr: * You'll be notified unless they are prohibited from doing so * The passcode lock means nothing. * Apple can tap your email and information from native applications (so call history, photos, SMS, etc), excluding iMessage and Facetime (Apple can't even access those). * They can't access information from third party applications * iOS4 or later only

djrogers 12y ago
"Apple can tap your email and information from native applications (so call history, photos, SMS, etc), excluding iMessage and Facetime (Apple can't even access those)." Misleading - Apple can extract that data from an iPhone at it's Cupertino Headquarters. Not tap. Significant difference in that for this LE would have to obtain/confiscate the from you, this isn't remote data extraction.

sprite 12y ago

Specifically, Apple says it can extract active user-generated data from native apps on passcode-locked iOS such as SMS, photos, videos, contacts, audio recording, and call history. Are they talking remotely or with device in hand?

pilif 12y ago
According to http://www.apple.com/legal/more-resources/law-enforcement/ http://www.apple.com/legal/more-resources/law-enforcement/ > The data extraction process can only be performed at Apple’s Cupertino, CA headquarters for devices that are in good working order. this can't be done remotely. Still. Why do they go through all the trouble with their encryption when they leave themselves a backdoor. Once a backdoor is in there, it'll be abused. Either by disgruntled employees or by everybody when it leaks.
- sprite 12y ago
  Thanks!
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Osmium 12y ago
  > Why do they go through all the trouble with their encryption when they leave themselves a backdoor. I am no means an expert on this, so someone else please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember reading that it's not so much a backdoor as much as there are only 9999 possible 4-digit passcodes (and most people only use 4-digit passcodes). The iPhone hardware rate-limits attempts to prevent you from brute-forcing it, but Apple can reflash the firmware to get around this, thus allowing them to be able to bruteforce the PIN. Whether this counts as a "backdoor" or not, I'm not sure. If that is true, then I imagine there'd be nothing they could do if you used a longer (random) password instead of a simple PIN.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    There is nothing Apple can do if you use something other than a 4 digit passcode beyond trying to crack your password.
  - nanofortnight 12y ago
    > Specifically, the user generated active files on an iOS device that are contained in Apple’s native apps and for which the data is not encrypted using the passcode (“user generated active files”), can be extracted and provided to law enforcement on external media. The keywords are "data [which] is not encrypted using the passcode".
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  I think you're misinterpreting the guidelines; specifically: Upon receipt of a valid search warrant, Apple can extract certain categories of active data from passcode locked iOS devices. Specifically, the user generated active files on an iOS device that are contained in Apple’s native apps and for which the data is not encrypted using the passcode (“user generated active files”), can be extracted and provided to law enforcement on external media. In other words, the only data which can be extracted is data which is not encrypted on the device using the passcode. So I don't really think this qualifies as a backdoor; it's just that physical access to the device allows them to retrieve unencrypted data.

Canada 12y ago

I don't believe iMessage or Facetime are safe. All this announcement says is that if you weren't a target then Apple can't retroactively gain access to previous sessions. Since the user can't see which keys are used Apple can simply add itself to any conversation. And since Apple can do it the FBI could secretly order them to do so. I also think it's only a matter of time until companies like Apple are compelled to use their remote update capabilities to trojan target devices.

zdiddy 12y ago

How I determined this ambiguous PR/ carefully crafted legal language to read is: 1.) Apple can only extract your data from [remotely, using a tool that only resides and can only be used at] their Cupertino HQ. 2.) Devices must be in good working order. Meaning = device doesn't have to be present to WIN

Evolved 12y ago

If you change the passcode from simple to complex and then set a 4-digit passcode it doesn't automatically try after you enter the 4th digit. It asks you to press OK. This means you could enter 4 digits but not know whether the passcode string length is 1 or 100 characters (includes all alphanumeric characters. Also, I'm just using an absurdly high number. I don't know what the max passcode length is.) before attempting to brute force it.

rdl 12y ago
If you have an all-numeric passcode which isn't a "simple passcode", it doesn't display length, but does show only the numeric keypad, indicating to an attacker it's only numeric. I personally would rather enter a 12 digit numeric to an 8 character alphanumeric. (Also included 80 character full upper/lower with numbers and symbols, but this is unrealistic given how many keypresses are required for modifiers.) <PRE> 10^12 = 1000000000000 36^8 = 2821109907456 80^6 = 262144000000 80^7 = 20971520000000 At 10 Hz, the first two options get you 3000 to 10000 years. A reasonable lower bound, given 10Hz on the tries, is 10^9 = 100000000 36^6 = 60466176 80^5 = 40960000 47-90 days. </PRE>

rdl 12y ago

Seems pretty clear how they do this -- booting the device off an Apple-signed image which just extracts unencrypted data and exports it. (I suppose it's possible there's some weird signed-apple-driver way to do this on a running phone, too.) Only Apple can do it because only Apple can sign an evil bootloader like this. There is a lot of room to improve the iOS security model against Apple/USG threats, but otherwise, it's still pretty good. A non-Apple-friendly intelligence agency would still probably be better off attacking the actual security element; DPA, physical attacks, etc. should be able to pull the key. I'd estimate this capability would cost $10mm to develop and maybe $10k per device to attack, which would be great if you knew your adversaries used iPhones. The biggest ongoing risk I see is that Apple could push an "evil" OS update to specific users if it wanted; if it can get the users to install it, all the hardware protections are irrelevant; you just get the user to enter the passcode, decrypt, exfiltrate. Solving that problem is really difficult without somehow having your own organization handle all OS updates.

matthewmacleod 12y ago
Seems pretty clear how they do this -- booting the device off an Apple-signed image which just extracts unencrypted data and exports it. (I suppose it's possible there's some weird signed-apple-driver way to do this on a running phone, too.) Only Apple can do it because only Apple can sign an evil bootloader like this. That would seem correct. However, given that some of the data on the device is also encrypted by a derivation of the passcode, this limits the scope of data which could be retrieved. A non-Apple-friendly intelligence agency would still probably be better off attacking the actual security element; DPA, physical attacks, etc. should be able to pull the key. I'd estimate this capability would cost $10mm to develop and maybe $10k per device to attack, which would be great if you knew your adversaries used iPhones. I expect you'd need physical access, and indeed that you'd probably need to uncap the AES chip to retrieve the UID - barring any unknown vulnerabilities. Possible, but destructive and not cheap The biggest ongoing risk I see is that Apple could push an "evil" OS update to specific users if it wanted; if it can get the users to install it, all the hardware protections are irrelevant; you just get the user to enter the passcode, decrypt, exfiltrate. Solving that problem is really difficult without somehow having your own organization handle all OS updates. That's the problem. The secure boot chain gives Apple ultimate control over the software on the device, and that requires trust.