Judge forces Apple to unlock iPhone

[Rakehellion]

And they only have to (forced to) spend millions of dollars to defend against being forced

Legal fees are routine costs of running a business. They've probably spent ten times as much on toner for their fax machines.

If Apple loses it's lengthy and very expensive battle it will be compelled to comply by either shutting their doors or face the full weight of the United States Justice system.

If.

 

[LPCTech]

Apple is going to win. fyi.

also.

How do the victims family feel about it?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban...usband-to-judge-terrorist-iphone-u#.qd3Bpx809

They are filing friend of the court briefs on behalf of Apple.

 

[3chordcharlie]

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/02/29/us-cannot-make-apple-provide-iphone-data-ny-judge-says.html

EW YORK – The U.S. Justice Department cannot force Apple to provide the FBI with access to a locked iPhone data in a routine Brooklyn drug case, a magistrate judge ruled Monday.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein's written decision gives support to the company's position in its fight against a California judge's order that it create specialized software to help the FBI hack into an iPhone linked to the San Bernardino terrorism investigation. Apple's filing to oppose the order by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym in California is due by Friday.

The San Bernardino County-owned iPhone 5C was used by Syed Farook, who was a health inspector. He and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people during a Dec. 2 attack that was at least partly inspired by the Islamic State group.

Fortunately law enforcement has such a hard-on for acquiring 'exceptional' powers that they never keep this stuff in their pants long enough for the landmark 'terrorist' case to wind through the courts.

Public opinion matters, ideally this will help.

 

[Darwin333]

Legal fees are routine costs of running a business. They've probably spent ten times as much on toner for their fax machines.

Taking the government, potentially, all the way to the Supreme Court due to no fault of their own is not a routine cost of doing business and will cost a hellofa lot more than their fax machine toner.

If.

Well yes that would be why I said it, what's your point?

 

[DrPizza]

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.




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:

So, what you're saying, is the FBI wants to kick down the door, and probably can do so easily - if Apple removes the deadbolt on the door that's preventing them.

 

[Paratus]

So, what you're saying, is the FBI wants to kick down the door, and probably can do so easily - if Apple removes the deadbolt on the door that's preventing them.

Not quite. The front door has a lock, the user pin or passcode. The problem is a 4 digit pin is akin to a thumb latch on the door. Easily busted down in our metaphor. A significantly long alpha numeric passcode is like a deadbolt and steel security door. Much tougher to break down.

Apple knows most of its users opt for the pin/thumb latch. So they provide software to secure the pin. I think of it like a guard that will prevent anyone from messing with the front door.

The FBI wants the guard fired. Firing the guard reduces security but does not directly open the door nor does it remove the lock.

I hate to use a movie as an example but a backdoor is what we saw in Wargames where Matthew Broderick found the original programmers password. It completely bypassed the security and granted access to everything. If Apple had this then the attack firmware isn't needed.

Later we saw a brute force attack by WOPR trying to access the missile launch codes. It was ultimately successful in that there was no penalty for multiple wrong guesses a la what the FBI wants. A brute force attack is still a different vulnerability than a back door.

With a backdoor the user has no recourse. With brute force your passcode can keep your data safe if you can stand using a long enough and complex enough passcode.

 

[Fern]

This US case may not matter much.

European LE is angry about not be able to get into phones too:

France wants to fine Apple 1 million euros each time it refuses to decrypt an iPhone

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03...-refuses-to-decrypt-iphone.html?intcmp=hphz06

Fern

 

[3chordcharlie]

This US case may not matter much.

European LE is angry about not be able to get into phones too:


http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03...-refuses-to-decrypt-iphone.html?intcmp=hphz06

Fern

I would rather see apple opt out of the French market. This stuff really needs to stop.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Apple is going to win. fyi.

also.

How do the victims family feel about it?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/hamzashaban...usband-to-judge-terrorist-iphone-u#.qd3Bpx809

They are filing friend of the court briefs on behalf of Apple.

Wonder how much Apple is paying them for that. They surely didn't wake up one morning and pay to hire a lawyer to file briefs supporting Apple out of sense of charity towards Apple.

 

[Ichinisan]

Not quite. The front door has a lock, the user pin or passcode. The problem is a 4 digit pin is akin to a thumb latch on the door. Easily busted down in our metaphor. A significantly long alpha numeric passcode is like a deadbolt and steel security door. Much tougher to break down.

Apple knows most of its users opt for the pin/thumb latch. So they provide software to secure the pin. I think of it like a guard that will prevent anyone from messing with the front door.

The FBI wants the guard fired. Firing the guard reduces security but does not directly open the door nor does it remove the lock.

I hate to use a movie as an example but a backdoor is what we saw in Wargames where Matthew Broderick found the original programmers password. It completely bypassed the security and granted access to everything. If Apple had this then the attack firmware isn't needed.

Later we saw a brute force attack by WOPR trying to access the missile launch codes. It was ultimately successful in that there was no penalty for multiple wrong guesses a la what the FBI wants. A brute force attack is still a different vulnerability than a back door.

With a backdoor the user has no recourse. With brute force your passcode can keep your data safe if you can stand using a long enough and complex enough passcode.

PIN defaults to 6 digits for a long time now. I use full complex PIN with full keyboard.

Also, the analogy is just totally wrong. This is about destroying the contents of a safe if someone guesses the wrong combination too many times. The government wants to make it illegal to sell a safe that doesn't compromise one of its fundamental security features by providing a manufacturer-developed work-around.

 

[Darwin333]

I would rather see apple opt out of the French market. This stuff really needs to stop.

It doesn't seem like the law outlaws security measures that even the developer/manufacturer can't break. Apple should simply make their next update include some sort of feature that automatically wipes the phone if you try to force an update without user permission. Problem solved, Apple can't do shit to help no matter who asks. I highly doubt you will see any (first world) countries banning Iphones as a whole. That would be like our Congress banning American Idol.

 

[Darwin333]

PIN defaults to 6 digits for a long time now. I use full complex PIN with full keyboard.

Also, the analogy is just totally wrong. This is about destroying the contents of a safe if someone guesses the wrong combination too many times. The government wants to make it illegal to sell a safe that doesn't compromise one of its fundamental security features by providing a manufacturer-developed work-around.

That would take an act of Congress. Apple's issue is that they didn't go quite far enough with their security and it seems like a rather easy feature to add. If they had designed the OS in such a way that they couldn't do dick to help the .gov we wouldn't be talking about the DOJ trying to force them to do what they couldn't possibly do. Granted, we might be talking about Congress trying to pass a law that requires all smartphones going forward to be hackable instead but that's still quite possible after the election.

 

[Paratus]

PIN defaults to 6 digits for a long time now. I use full complex PIN with full keyboard.

Also, the analogy is just totally wrong. This is about destroying the contents of a safe if someone guesses the wrong combination too many times. The government wants to make it illegal to sell a safe that doesn't compromise one of its fundamental security features by providing a manufacturer-developed work-around.

Well obviously I disagree that analogy is wrong. (Actually the lawyers for the FBI just said all they want is for Apple to remove their vicious guard dog)

I'm fine with your analogy. The main thing to point out is there is a fundamental difference between a backdoor and what the FBI wants.

If Apple was able to put in firmware with a backdoor in it, think typing "Jobs" unlocks the phone, then we really are totally screwed.

What the FBI wants screws us less. I can still secure my phone like you do with a complex passcode.

I still don't agree with what they want

 

[fskimospy]

Well obviously I disagree that analogy is wrong. (Actually the lawyers for the FBI just said all they want is for Apple to remove their vicious guard dog)

I'm fine with your analogy. The main thing to point out is there is a fundamental difference between a backdoor and what the FBI wants.

If Apple was able to put in firmware with a backdoor in it, think typing "Jobs" unlocks the phone, then we really are totally screwed.

What the FBI wants screws us less. I can still secure my phone like you do with a complex passcode.

I still don't agree with what they want

I think in the end what the FBI wants is pointless. They can demand back doors all they want, but people truly interested in privacy will have options where those aren't present as technology advances.

I guess having a back door requirement might help for the amateurs, but for people who care about those things it's a losing battle.

 

[MrPickins]

... The main thing to point out is there is a fundamental difference between a backdoor and what the FBI wants....

The only difference is semantic.

The ends result is the same, regardless of whether it's a true back door or just the ability to make brute-forcing a trivial task.

 

[Paratus]

The only difference is semantic.

The ends result is the same, regardless of whether it's a true back door or just the ability to make brute-forcing a trivial task.

But it's not. If you are concerned about having your phone accessed with this firmware crack (two firmware cracks are required for A7 and up) you can make your passcode longer.

http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with-the-fbi-court-order/
Without any slowdowns it takes about 80ms to try a passcode. With an appropriate length pass code you could force a brute force attack to take decades.

According to wolfram alpha you could try ~ 40 billion pass codes per century. So any alphanumeric passcode longer than 6 characters is essentially unbreakable.

A 4 digit pass code will take about 15 minutes.

 

[CZroe]

Actually, I'm pretty sure they have a way to try faster. I think it has something to do with transplanting a FW dump on multiple phones to multiply how fast they can make the attempts. Even if they can't do this for iPhones, they often virtualize file systems and such where possible to defeat such protections, so it's not unheard of.

 

[Balt]

FBI acknowledged that an error locked San Bernardino attacker’s iPhone http://nyti.ms/1QKdVkO

Nice work.

 

[Kwatt]

FBI acknowledged that an error locked San Bernardino attacker’s iPhone http://nyti.ms/1QKdVkO

Nice work.

Or....Just a minute while I get my "foil" hat on.

As it now looks like there is more of these phones that the DOJ/FBI wants access to. This is the case that they where waiting on. Because now it can be said Apple is enabling "terrorist". Not just normal "criminals".

I wonder if the Icloud password was changed on any of the other phones?

Hat is off.

.

 

[Genx87]

Oh look the govt screws up again and wants to trample privacy to fix it.

 

[Balt]

Or....Just a minute while I get my "foil" hat on.

As it now looks like there is more of these phones that the DOJ/FBI wants access to. This is the case that they where waiting on. Because now it can be said Apple is enabling "terrorist". Not just normal "criminals".

I wonder if the Icloud password was changed on any of the other phones?

Hat is off.

.

If that doesn't work, my guess is next they'll say Apple is enabling pedophiles. If they haven't already, that is.

 

[jackstar7]

If that doesn't work, my guess is next they'll say Apple is enabling pedophiles. If they haven't already, that is.

B-B-BUT I hate pedos! Shame on Apple for letting these monsters get away with their crimes!

Or whatever other insipid nonsense we can look forward to. The future is so bright that I wear my sunglasses at night.

 

[zinfamous]

I'll try to find a link, but this morning Darryl Issa, of all people, was on NPR commenting about the FBI's demand re: their orders to Apple, and, holy shit: He goddamn nailed it.

Issa may be a thundercunt, but he was 100% right about this and for once, I'm a fan of his jerky nature in his response to David Green. (I do think David Green was doing his job for the most part--essentially bringing this perspective on, but for far too long no journalist with any network has presented the actual reality of what the FBI is asking)

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/03/46900...fbi-s-strategy-to-get-into-terrorist-s-iphone

First he mentions how the FBI could have requested to clone the phone thousands of times over (as some of you suggested earlier), then brute force their way through the various clones, but clearly they want carte blanch to access all phones, on demand.

Then (paraphrasing):

"No, the government is lying to you. They don't want to unlock this phone. They want to unlock 9 other phones that they already have, and more in the future. They are lying to you, and republicans and democrats have been doing it forever."

"Well, I'm just doing my job as a journalist, I need to ask if this sets a precedent that restricts information regarding would-be terrorists. Does this make us less safe?"

"David, you are enabling them. You aren't being a journalist. You are reporting the FBI's message as if it were true. It is not." etc etc. Finally someone directly addresses exactly what the FBI is requesting.

I'm willing to look past Issa's history of insurance fraud and arson, wasting tax payer's dollars for mostly useless, partisan hackery "investigations" because of this one public statement (OK, for like, one week )

 

[maddogchen]

yeah that npr interview was awesome.

 

[zinfamous]

yeah that npr interview was awesome.

I know. I've been yelling at the various news stations every day for the last ~2 weeks now, pissing off the GF in the process.

Finally someone, anyone says exactly what needs to be said on one of these shows.