"Backdoor" has always been visually descriptive. Anyone who speaks English should know how "backdoor" applies here. Marco Rubio, it seems, doesn't speak English.
How can you possibly say it does not bypass normal authentication if normal authentication has this measure specifically to prevent brute force attacks? "Authentication" is not simply one thing. There are many parts of the process and that is absolutely one of them. It's a very important one too, considering that it's the only one that needs to be backdoored.
Backdoor is visually descriptive. It describes a secret entry point that allows someone access to the contents of the room the backdoor enters. The FBI is asking Apple to assist them in a brute force attack not provide a backdoor. Apple does not have a backdoor that allows the FBI access to the contents of the storage.
Brute force is also descriptive. It describes breaking the door in. If you have a back door you don't break down the front.
It does bypass the normal security mechanism that wipes sensitive data when the wrong password is entered too many times...and that's extremely fucking important for a "secure" device.
I agree it does bypass the normal security. It does not directly bypass authentication nor bypass the cryptographic security of the storage. That's what the brute force attack does and why it's called a brute force attack not a backdoor
I agree that having Apple weaken their security is absolutely an overreach by the government. Even if you believe they would never use it without a legitimate warrant there's no way once an attack firmware is made it won't escape into the wild.
Anyway that's why I don't consider it a backdoor. It doesn't meet the definition. It is however a brute force attack.
(I wonder if its occurred to the FBI that all of us government employees with govt issued iPhones rely on that security to protect our government information.)
:hmm:
Facebook
Twitter