Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 293 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#131

Post by [deleted] »

vectorjohn wrote: post #123
Bud wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that there is no mechanism by which iPhones can have a back door, but only for the good guys and only with a warrant. That does not exist. And it never can exist. There is no grey area for compromise here. The encryption is either secure and free of known backdoors—and thus it grants real security—or it isn't, and it doesn't.

You are making that up. Of course there is such a mechanism. What do you think software signing is but a way for the good guys and only the good guys to run code on your device? It's exactly the same. All Apple has to do is make a piece of software that only runs on this phone and sign it. Then nobody can be attacked except this one phone. And it had to go through a warrant and all! And to your last point: this softw…

[deleted]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#132

Post by iancarroll »

[deleted] wrote: post #126
haberman wrote: post #117

I'm really trying to figure out what this case is really about, vs. what the players are saying it is about. The government says it just wants to unlock this one iPhone. But is it really just looking for a legal precedent in a case that the public is likely to support the unlocking? Apple says is it afraid of creating a "master key" that could fall into the wrong hands. But doesn't it already have such a key, in the…

[deleted]

I'm pretty sure iOS updates are signed per device, as that's why everyone backs up their signatures for old versions (so that they can go back while Apple isn't signing them). So Apple could only sign this backdoor for one device.

http://www.saurik.com/id/12

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#133

Post by aljones »

timr wrote: post #109
themartorana wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were pretty clear that there are major differences in the case in the article you linked to. It's not rare for a company to provide info/help to law enforcement when asked/compelled. It was easy to do on iOS 7. The ask in this case is totally different.

"They were pretty clear that there are major differences in the case in the article you linked to." No, there really aren't. From the article: "The cases are different, but the underlying legal question is very similar," says Alex Abdo, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. "The question in the New York case is whether the government can rely on this very old statute to conscript Apple into government ser…

but it wasn't a brute force attack those 70 times so how is it the same thing?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#134

Post by empressplay »

varenc wrote: post #116
Pyxl101 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably could build a version of the OS that worked only for single devices. In the latest court case about San Bernadino, that's what the FBI is asking for. There's a unique device id, as I understand it, that the OS could detect. I believe that Apple is opposing it on principle, and out of concern of the precedent that it would set. Once it's been done once, the fact that it's been done will significantly low…

That interpretation doesn't seem to line up with what apple stated. > "Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control." The part about being able to guarantee such control seems to indicate that future requests may not require Apple's involvement.

FYI, just because Apple said it doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#135

Post by Kluny »

Zarel wrote: post #107
Kluny wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we're talking about Digital Ocean, how has your experience been? My company currently uses Dreamhost, but we've had quite a few problems with them lately and we're thinking about switching.

Could you tell me about your problems with Dreamhost? I've had minor problems with Dreamhost, but nothing major yet.

They are pretty good with customer support and transparency. It's just that we have hundreds of sites, and about half are on a dedicated server. We asked that it be moved to Portland when they opened up a new datacenter there, but they moved it to Virginia instead - I guess Portland wasn't ready or something. Anyway, our sites were in Virginia and our database was in Portland, and the latency between the two got out of hand. We had a lot of down sites and a very stressful week or so for me and my boss. Problems continue with the shared server upgrading to a version of PHP that doesn't work with our sites - we can't really blame them for doing that and there was plenty of warning, but it added more stress to an already stressful month.

On top of that, our server in Portland STILL isn't ready, and we don't have an eta on when it will be. There's been a couple of other little things too - basically it feels like a major problem with the server every other day, clients are mad, and we feel out of our depth.

Anyway, I leave work at 5pm but my boss doesn't and I don't want him to die of a heart attack. So. Digital Ocean is being investigated.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#136

Post by [deleted] »

vectorjohn wrote: post #123
Bud wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that there is no mechanism by which iPhones can have a back door, but only for the good guys and only with a warrant. That does not exist. And it never can exist. There is no grey area for compromise here. The encryption is either secure and free of known backdoors—and thus it grants real security—or it isn't, and it doesn't.

You are making that up. Of course there is such a mechanism. What do you think software signing is but a way for the good guys and only the good guys to run code on your device? It's exactly the same. All Apple has to do is make a piece of software that only runs on this phone and sign it. Then nobody can be attacked except this one phone. And it had to go through a warrant and all! And to your last point: this softw…

[deleted]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#137

Post by aljones »

vectorjohn wrote: post #123
Bud wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that there is no mechanism by which iPhones can have a back door, but only for the good guys and only with a warrant. That does not exist. And it never can exist. There is no grey area for compromise here. The encryption is either secure and free of known backdoors—and thus it grants real security—or it isn't, and it doesn't.

You are making that up. Of course there is such a mechanism. What do you think software signing is but a way for the good guys and only the good guys to run code on your device? It's exactly the same. All Apple has to do is make a piece of software that only runs on this phone and sign it. Then nobody can be attacked except this one phone. And it had to go through a warrant and all! And to your last point: this softw…

Now wait. If the passcode is complex then it is secure, which is a very typical requirement for security.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#138

Post by haberman »

[deleted] wrote: post #126
haberman wrote: post #117

I'm really trying to figure out what this case is really about, vs. what the players are saying it is about. The government says it just wants to unlock this one iPhone. But is it really just looking for a legal precedent in a case that the public is likely to support the unlocking? Apple says is it afraid of creating a "master key" that could fall into the wrong hands. But doesn't it already have such a key, in the…

[deleted]

Did you miss the part where the government said they were fine with Apple keeping the custom iOS software version in their possession, and not giving it to the government?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/20/us/politics/ap-us...

"Apple may maintain custody of the software, destroy it after its purpose under the order has been served, refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it does not apply to other devices or users without lawful court orders," the Justice Department told Judge Sheri Pym on Friday. "No one outside Apple would have access to the software required by the order unless Apple itself chose to share it."

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#139

Post by 2bitencryption »

[deleted] wrote: post #126
haberman wrote: post #117

I'm really trying to figure out what this case is really about, vs. what the players are saying it is about. The government says it just wants to unlock this one iPhone. But is it really just looking for a legal precedent in a case that the public is likely to support the unlocking? Apple says is it afraid of creating a "master key" that could fall into the wrong hands. But doesn't it already have such a key, in the…

[deleted]

My understanding was that the malformed update would allow them to bypass the 10-attempt limit and also the delays between attempts, allowing a brute force attack. Meaning a device with a sufficiently strong password would still be capable of being secure, barring any secret government technology that we don't know about that can crack 64 character random passwords(which probably does exist).

HOWEVER, if I'm not mistaken, the newer iPhones (the one in question is a 5c) hold the delay-between-attempts limit IN HARDWARE, so a firmware upgrade would do nothing. The encryption is all done in dedicated hardware on the device. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

#140

Post by haberman »

Bud wrote: post #118
haberman wrote: post #117

I'm really trying to figure out what this case is really about, vs. what the players are saying it is about. The government says it just wants to unlock this one iPhone. But is it really just looking for a legal precedent in a case that the public is likely to support the unlocking? Apple says is it afraid of creating a "master key" that could fall into the wrong hands. But doesn't it already have such a key, in the…

The problem is that there is no mechanism by which iPhones can have a back door, but only for the good guys and only with a warrant. That does not exist. And it never can exist. There is no grey area for compromise here. The encryption is either secure and free of known backdoors—and thus it grants real security—or it isn't, and it doesn't.

By your definition then, the iPhone doesn't grant real security since Apple is capable of installing this modified iOS version.

So given that the iPhone is not secure, what do you think about whether Apple should execute this court order?

Post reply on HN