The iPhone 6 is apparently the only "secure" smartphone available currently.

[SunnyD]

A friend of mine at a security conference just recently posted the following:

...I can only sit in a room with private sector forensic auditors and law enforcement so many times and hear "we can't access data on the iPhone 6 with iOS 8" before I just give in. I know lollipop encrypts and I love my S5, but they very clearly said "we have ways around even recent Android controls". However, hearing the frustration in the voices of the Federal and local officials as they talk about how they can't get into iOS 8 on an iPhone 6 even with a court order...

So not even the latest Android changes help, but whatever Apple has is still ahead of the curve.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I don't want to get into a whole Apple vs Android debate, but I'm curious about the technical side of things.

Apple has a hardware encryption chip right? That's what controls the encryption keys--your device. That's why they can manage to have data encryption even without using a secure lockscreen.

The Android solution seems to rely on software encryption only, and I believe data speeds are significantly reduced

 

[luv2liv]

i dont understand. if they have a court order, then they can force your fingerprint onto the phone right?

 

[SunnyD]

i dont understand. if they have a court order, then they can force your fingerprint onto the phone right?

I'm fairly certain the implication was a court order "for Apple to assist with decrypting the device or a copy of the contents of the device".

 

[Graze]

opps double post

 

[Graze]

I don't want to get into a whole Apple vs Android debate, but I'm curious about the technical side of things.

Apple has a hardware encryption chip right? That's what controls the encryption keys--your device. That's why they can manage to have data encryption even without using a secure lockscreen.

Where did you read this? Please link to it. I read a detailed article about the encryption differences between the two and it wasn't based on any encryption hardware.
I am not talking about hardware acceleration encryption(which I believe is present on iOS) but just the strength of the encryption used as in not being able to bypass it.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Where did you read this? Please link to it. I read a detailed article about the encryption differences between the two and it wasn't based on any encryption hardware.
I am not talking about hardware acceleration encryption(which I believe is present on iOS) but just the strength of the encryption used as in not being able to bypass it.

https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/68454/android-l-encryption-vs-ios-8-encryption

Lacking info on the new Androids, but prior to that, Kit Kat uses software encryption only.

It is already known that Apple uses a hardware solution that provides benefits such as limiting brute force attacks and what not. I'm not too clear on the rest of the differences and what exactly it spells for the consumer, but one example I know of is if you factory reset an iPhone, the data is gone permanently. The encryption key is wiped. On the other hand, its possible to recover data off an Android device unless you encrypted the data to begin with and in order to encrypt the device, prior to L you had to turn it on and you were forced to use a lock screen.

 

[dainthomas]

The best strategy is just to operate on the assumption that nothing is secure. I certainly wouldn't rely on apple "security" to keep me out of trouble.

 

[Viper GTS]

The other thing to remember in this is that the number of Android 5.0 devices LE has encountered to date is probably near zero as compared to the millions of iOS 8 devices that exist now. I don't think law enforcement experience means anything when Android 5.0 represents only 1.6% of Android devices (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...for-kitkat-but-lollipop-is-gaining-ground.htm) vs 68% iOS8 (http://www.cnet.com/news/ios-8-adoption-rate-hits-68-percent/).

Viper GTS

 

[Graze]

oh found an article that broke down Android's encryption issue vs iOS's and Delerium it turns out hardware does help but its not the full reason.

http://blog.kaspersky.com/full-disk-encryption-android-5/

The initial encryption scheme deployed by Google in Android was apparently quite secure. However, its implementation in the software, as is so often the case, is where weaknesses arise. Particularly, the security of this encryption scheme depends almost entirely on the complexity of the disk encryption passphrase and its susceptibility to brute-force attacks.

If it is sufficiently long and complex, bruteforcing the encrypted master key could take years,” Elenkov explains. “However, because Android has chosen to reuse the lock-screen PIN or password (maximum length 16 characters), in practice most people are likely to end up with a relatively short or low-entropy disk encryption password.”

In other words: the strength of the disk encryption on Android was as strong (or weak) as your lock-screen password. And in most cases it is really weak because people are too lazy to set long lock-screen passwords.

This was pre Lollipop at the time kaspersky didnt analyse lollipop's encryption since it wasn't release

So long story short better make that paraphrase nice and long. Limited to 16 characters which would be more than enough to fend off any brute force attacks for your lifetime and your children's lifetime once a proper encryption cipher is used.

 

[SunnyD]

The other thing to remember in this is that the number of Android 5.0 devices LE has encountered to date is probably near zero as compared to the millions of iOS 8 devices that exist now. I don't think law enforcement experience means anything when Android 5.0 represents only 1.6% of Android devices (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...for-kitkat-but-lollipop-is-gaining-ground.htm) vs 68% iOS8 (http://www.cnet.com/news/ios-8-adoption-rate-hits-68-percent/).

Viper GTS

I would tend to think that if federal agencies say they already have tools to extract data from Lollipop-based devices, but have no tools to successfully retrieve data from iPhone6/iOS8 that would not imply any sort of market penetration based problem at this point.

 

[Mopetar]

The other thing to remember in this is that the number of Android 5.0 devices LE has encountered to date is probably near zero as compared to the millions of iOS 8 devices that exist now. I don't think law enforcement experience means anything when Android 5.0 represents only 1.6% of Android devices (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...for-kitkat-but-lollipop-is-gaining-ground.htm) vs 68% iOS8 (http://www.cnet.com/news/ios-8-adoption-rate-hits-68-percent/).

Viper GTS

Could also be a matter of Android 5.0 has support for hardware encryption but few (or even no) devices currently support it.

 

[Mopetar]

Also:

 

[lopri]

I am more annoyed and concerned by Apple + Google + NSA + carriers peeking at my stuff ALL THE TIME than someone else checking out my phone which is a highly unlikely scenario to begin with.

As to law enforcement, you will have to commit something quite serious if your phone is subject to brute-force cracking by court order. A chance of your local police being able to hack your encrypted smartphone is close to zero. Ironically, it would be much easier to simply force your hand to scan fingerprints than to force you to spell out passwords.

Security is only as good as it is practical.

 

[midwestfisherman]

i dont understand. if they have a court order, then they can force your fingerprint onto the phone right?

They (the authorities), can compel you to use your finger print to access your iPhone but, they cannot compel you to use your passcode. This was from a recent Supreme Court decision. So, if you're worried about security on your device then turn off the touch ID. Outside of that the iPhone encryption is quite strong and is frustrating Big Brother!

 

[lopri]

@midwestfisherman: I do not think it is a clear-cut. Police can collect your fingerprints for identification purpose, but it is not clear whether police can order you to unlock your smartphone using fingerprints. The cases were decided before iOS 8 and Lollipop were published. One case says looking at one's smartphone is a search within the meaning of the 4th amendment (thus requires a warrant), and another says police can take your fingerprints for identification purpose without a warrant. (like asking for drivers license)

I guess the police can take your fingerprints and reverse-engineer the fingers, then use those to unlock a phone.

 

[Graze]

I guess the police can take your fingerprints and reverse-engineer the fingers, then use those to unlock a phone.

Exactly. Finger print readers should be used for identification(usernames) not authorisation(passwords)

 

[midwestfisherman]

Exactly. Finger print readers should be used for identification(usernames) not authorisation(passwords)

@midwestfisherman: I do not think it is a clear-cut. Police can collect your fingerprints for identification purpose, but it is not clear whether police can order you to unlock your smartphone using fingerprints. The cases were decided before iOS 8 and Lollipop were published. One case says looking at one's smartphone is a search within the meaning of the 4th amendment (thus requires a warrant), and another says police can take your fingerprints for identification purpose without a warrant. (like asking for drivers license)

I guess the police can take your fingerprints and reverse-engineer the fingers, then use those to unlock a phone.

I was wrong, the Supreme Court has not ruled on this but, a lower court has. Still, the ruling is as I had indicated in my original post. Police can indeed compel one to use their finger print to unlock their phone.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/20...o-unlock-phones-via-fingerprint-va-court.html

http://www.tuaw.com/2014/10/31/court-rules-touch-id-is-not-protected-by-the-fifth-amendment-bu/

http://www.americancriminallawreview.com/aclr-online/phones-fingerprints-and-fifth-amendment/

 

[lxskllr]

As to law enforcement, you will have to be accused of something quite serious if your phone is subject to brute-force cracking by court order.

Fixed. Accused and guilty are separated by a wide gulf, and the distinction is subject to abuse. Also, if cops can get in the phone, anyone can. All it takes is the right person looking in the right place, and the herculean effort by the few becomes trivial for the many.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

i dont understand. if they have a court order, then they can force your fingerprint onto the phone right?

@midwestfisherman: I do not think it is a clear-cut. Police can collect your fingerprints for identification purpose, but it is not clear whether police can order you to unlock your smartphone using fingerprints. The cases were decided before iOS 8 and Lollipop were published. One case says looking at one's smartphone is a search within the meaning of the 4th amendment (thus requires a warrant), and another says police can take your fingerprints for identification purpose without a warrant. (like asking for drivers license)

I guess the police can take your fingerprints and reverse-engineer the fingers, then use those to unlock a phone.

After 3 failed touchID tries it will ask for your full alphanumeric password. After a certain number of hours (6?) it will also automatically (without any failed touchID attempts) lock you out. Even if the cops force you to put your finger on the device, you can just use the wrong finger a couple times and *bingo* they cannot force you to disclose your alphanumeric password. Which is what you will have to put in. The only way a cop could get it, is if he gets the phone and gets the person to correctly unlock the phone for him within 6 hours and without making more than 2 failed attempts at touchID. Does that sound easy?



Really I don't know how anybody can use a google phone and feel safe about their data. Android needs better encryption and Google needs to get off the Fed's nuts.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

The best strategy is just to operate on the assumption that nothing is secure. I certainly wouldn't rely on apple "security" to keep me out of trouble.

So because you might not have security with Apple, you instead will 100% guarantee you have no security and go with Android? Sounds like android user logic to me, lol. How are so many fans of that operating system are willing to throw their security to the wind and "wing it"? It's a remarkable phenomenon. Who better to be the US government's secret online spy agency than the best search engine company in the world?



Yes I am saying Google is spying on every single thing you android users do, and sending ALL of it to the the US government. Google is not a friendly company. At least go with Microsoft and have some sembelence of security from the mere fact that nobody would ever expect you to be crazy and use Windows Phone.

 

[Graze]

Really I don't know how anybody can use a google phone and feel safe about their data. Android needs better encryption and Google needs to get off the Fed's nuts.

There is nothing concrete about Android's encryption being compromised and even with the previous versions we saw as documented the short user passphrases were the weak link given its implementation.

 

[zerogear]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Snowden-NSA-spying-iPhone/2015/01/24/id/620541/

lul.

 

[lopri]

Even if the cops force you to put your finger on the device, you can just use the wrong finger a couple times and *bingo* they cannot force you to disclose your alphanumeric password. Which is what you will have to put in. The only way a cop could get it, is if he gets the phone and gets the person to correctly unlock the phone for him within 6 hours and without making more than 2 failed attempts at touchID. Does that sound easy?

Not a smart idea. A local police may lack a sophisticated expertise to hack encryption, there surely are policemen using iPhones with fingerprint scanner, which means they know how it works. You are likely to add obstruction of justice to your charge.

Exactly. Finger print readers should be used for identification(usernames) not authorisation(passwords)

Well put. I would go further and say no biometric data can be considered a secure password.

 

[lopri]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Snowden-NSA-spying-iPhone/2015/01/24/id/620541/

lul.

Sad thing is that this is probably true for all major smartphones. I remember a news story not too long ago about Congress report in which Hwawei and ZTE were alleged to be security threats to the U.S. I did not read the report but I am guessing they are a threat because:

1) They work for the Chinese government, or
2) They do not cooperate with the U.S. government.

There were some rumors about Intel chips containing some micro-logic that can be used to remotely wake the host system up without user's knowledge. People laughed at the idea but it does not seem like a far-fetched idea any more.