FBI: 1 Apple:0. The iPhone has been cracked
- Thread starter JamesStone
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If they had to pop the top off a chip or something like that it's dramatically different from having a software exploit that does the same sort of thing in the end results.
More importantly however Apple were not compelled to compromise the security of one of their devices. They might yet be compelled in the future, but in so far as this weakens the argument that doing so is necessary it serves as some weak security for future improvements they might make or may previously have made on that front.
More importantly however Apple were not compelled to compromise the security of one of their devices. They might yet be compelled in the future, but in so far as this weakens the argument that doing so is necessary it serves as some weak security for future improvements they might make or may previously have made on that front.
Yeah, this isn't really a loss for Apple, or a victory for the FBI.
This might seem like the pettiest of all petty quibbles, but the sheer amount of commas in that sentence make it extremely awkward and unwieldy.DoPo said:
Not really. The fear was never that the FBI would break into our house, take our phone and attempt to hack it; people were concerned that a backdoor for the FBI is a backdoor for everyone.Christian Neihart said:
My understanding is that what Apple is being asked to do is create a boot image that can be loaded onto an external hard drive. iPhones don't trust images not signed by Apple on that front and Apple could make the image to only work on one device by authenticating against a device ID.Sampler said:
The concern that one would have there is once Apple created this vulnerability they would be obliged to use it in future cases. Which would be trivial to do regardless of whether they signed the image they provided in this case to authenticate against a single device or not. Once the software exists you resign as needed. Their defence against being required to do so is strongest before that ability exists.
I understood and respected Apple's position to not aid in weakening their encryption or provide a 'Master Key of Unlocking', even to aid the FBI, in order to avoid undermining their security.
I also feel for the FBI's strong stance to force Apple to help them solve crimes despite undermining Apple's security in the future.
All I can say now is that Apple can't expect the FBI to give up how they did it on the grounds of solve a possible 'security flaw.'
Apple didn't help, so the FBI went another route. Now that the FBI got what they wanted, Apple can't expect to them to blab on their success.
I also feel for the FBI's strong stance to force Apple to help them solve crimes despite undermining Apple's security in the future.
All I can say now is that Apple can't expect the FBI to give up how they did it on the grounds of solve a possible 'security flaw.'
Apple didn't help, so the FBI went another route. Now that the FBI got what they wanted, Apple can't expect to them to blab on their success.
These aren't children on a playground, that's not how it works. There are laws and regulations, and the FBI is EXPECTED to divulge the security flaw.CrimsonBlaze said:
It's not a win for either side, honestly. Apple aren't getting anything out of this, and the FBI may have damaged their public image by dragging them to court over it. It's just a game of whack-a-mole right now. The FBI tracks down one security hole; Apple finds it and patches it. That is, until either party concedes.
I mean, of course the FBI could crack it if they really wanted to. The thing is is that they wanted to bully Apple and in the future other companies into doing it and making backdoor access easier for them.JamesStone said:
I'm glad with the outcome. Make them fucking work for it.
A lose of Apple,
It was actually Apple that used the word Backdoor first in a response statement to them being asked to wipe the number of attempts to unlock an Iphone before it deletes the data. All the FBI wanted was a system that would give them more than ten turns so they could brute force the unlock code. The word 'Backdoor' gives the impression that all you do is plug something in to the phone and bam all your data is now someone elses and I suspect that Apple chosen to use that word in their statement specifically because of that impression. What worse is Apple could have helped, and then burned the data in house or patched the feature out at a later date.
However Apple they decided that with civil liberties and the government peaking in to our day to day lives being such a buzz headline grabbing story as of late they were going to milk this publicity cow for as much customer positive feedback as they could generate and now it's blown up in their face.
No we won't help the FBI in a controlled way that gives us full understanding and the ability to fix the exploit used at a later date instead we will take the moral high stance and then go begging the FBI to tell us how they finally broke in to our product.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-next-steps-20160330-story.html
It was actually Apple that used the word Backdoor first in a response statement to them being asked to wipe the number of attempts to unlock an Iphone before it deletes the data. All the FBI wanted was a system that would give them more than ten turns so they could brute force the unlock code. The word 'Backdoor' gives the impression that all you do is plug something in to the phone and bam all your data is now someone elses and I suspect that Apple chosen to use that word in their statement specifically because of that impression. What worse is Apple could have helped, and then burned the data in house or patched the feature out at a later date.
However Apple they decided that with civil liberties and the government peaking in to our day to day lives being such a buzz headline grabbing story as of late they were going to milk this publicity cow for as much customer positive feedback as they could generate and now it's blown up in their face.
No we won't help the FBI in a controlled way that gives us full understanding and the ability to fix the exploit used at a later date instead we will take the moral high stance and then go begging the FBI to tell us how they finally broke in to our product.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-next-steps-20160330-story.html
I'm 50/50 on if it is actually a security flaw. My money's on either a former Apple employee/enthusiast took it upon himself to help the FBI or that a team of hackers came up with a method to bypass the encryption rather then exploit or weaken it.Einspanner said:
While those things are possible, it's unlikely that they'd have emerged in full form within a couple of weeks, rather than months to a year. Far more likely is that they did what they always had the ability to do, and that's clone a bunch of NANDs to bypass the 5x limit.CrimsonBlaze said:
Yeah, I believe that's what happened. With this method, the FBI treads on mid ground, bypassing Apple's encryption without actually crippling it. This way, the FBI can just muscle their way into trying every code possible rather than flat-out exploiting a security flaw, which realistically, they're always going to exist with or without the federal government twisting Apple's arm.Einspanner said:
Did they? Who said that? My understanding was that the FBI wanted Apple to disable the limit on unlock code attempts so that they could then brute force the phone without risk of erasing the data. Not sure where this golden key, by passing all encryption non sense came from?
'As such, the FBI is using an archaic law from 1789 called the "All Writs Act" to demand Apple's help: The bureau wants Apple's engineers to create a new version of iOS, specific to the iPhone 5c, that would circumvent security and allow an iPhone to be more easily broken into using what's called a "brute force attack" ? trying the passcode over and over again until the right one is found.'