Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by deathanatos » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 7:59 AM UTC

studentrob wrote: post #158

empressplay wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The CEO made a public statement. Any number of his employees or security experts could call him out if he were lying. You think all computer security experts are in cahoots on this? Cook could have lied and said building a special OS was impossible. But he didn't because he knows someone will find out. When you're facing a subpoena, you don't knowingly lie.

> When you're facing a subpoena, you don't knowingly lie.

Not that I believe Apple's CEO is lying, however…

You don't knowingly lie if you think the risk of getting caught is unacceptably high. That last part is important, I think, and indeed, you state, "because he knows someone will find out", so I know you get it. However, I don't think we should forget that a great deal of the concern we have presently in this thread about the government's capability in introspecting our technology is indirectly the result of the DNI lying under oath¹.

¹I know your post says subpoena, but it seems similar enough that its worth reminding…

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

#232

Post by imron » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 8:00 AM UTC

acqq wrote: post #223

Johnny555 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that thinking is that there is no firm definition of the "Good Guys", and the guys you think are good today, may not be so good tomorrow. > this software is not secure. That's why we have this backdoor option. It's not perfectly secure, but still awfully secure if even the US Government can't break it themselves.

> still awfully secure I believe they were just sloppy: http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bernardino-shooters-apple-id-pa... "San Bernardino Shooter's iCloud Password Changed While iPhone was in Government Possession" The information wasn't "awfully" secured.

After watching this whole thing play out, I'm seriously wondering whether 'sloppy' was actually 'on purpose because this is a great chance to establish precedent'.

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

#233

Post by plorg » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 8:03 AM UTC

2bitencryption wrote: post #139

[deleted] wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 mist…

Each attempt takes 80 ms. That's in hardware. There is a separate retry delay that increases exponentially then tops out at 1 hour per unsuccessful attempt. The 10-try limit is the number of consecutive unsuccessful attempts before the device erases its stored encryption keys (effectively wiping itself).

It seems that the attempt limit at least is not hardcoded and can be updated, as it has been increased in the past by an iOS update. I would suspect the same is true for the attempt retry delay time. Either way, this is only specifically applicable to devices newer than the 5c, which doesn't have a Secure Element (or "Secure Enclave" in Applespeak).

In any case, given a software image made to the FBI's specifications, the time to crack a phone depends on the complexity of the user passcode. If the user had a 4-digit numeric PIN it could be cracked in under 15 minutes. On the other hand, with a sufficiently complex passcode the expected time to brute force the device could be literally in the millions of years.

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

#234

Post by citizensixteen » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 8:09 AM UTC

acqq wrote: post #186

Don't forget, one of the issues is: on which legal basis is Apple requested to help: The question is, is this act (the whole text follows): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act "(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. (b) An alternative writ or rul…

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

#235

Post by altitudinous » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 8:11 AM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #213

altitudinous wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is about the precedent. Consider that the current fully secure Apple device situation is point A, and the fully exploited your private data is easily extracted by criminals easily cracked Apple device situation is point Z. The FBI is currently arguing for point B - just this device. The argument is - it is so close to point A, there is no issue! If the FBI wins point B, then they will argue for point C. - it is so…

This is step by step slippery slope fallacy. You are not addressing the issue at hand. You are instead arguing that if we somehow don't take your side here, then there will never be another point at which we can argue the pros and cons of possible subsequent escalations or refusals. Which is why it's a fallacy.

I hadn't heard of this fallacy before, I agree that what I wrote may be interpreted as a good example of it. I shouldn't have used the word inevitable.

I don't think that if the FBI wins the current battle then all is lost. But I do think that the FBI intends to fight all the battles until they win the long game.

That said, I don't hold any side in the argument.

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

#236

Post by vectorjohn » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 8:14 AM UTC

altitudinous wrote: post #142

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…

It is about the precedent. Consider that the current fully secure Apple device situation is point A, and the fully exploited your private data is easily extracted by criminals easily cracked Apple device situation is point Z. The FBI is currently arguing for point B - just this device. The argument is - it is so close to point A, there is no issue! If the FBI wins point B, then they will argue for point C. - it is so…

That does seem to be the argument. It's a slippery slope fallacy. There is no reason to assume this sets any sort of precedent.

And it should be pointed out that point A never existed. Apple's device is not fully secure, or they wouldn't be capable of complying with the FBI.

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

#237

Post by citizensixteen » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 8:14 AM UTC

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…

>I'm really trying to figure out what this case is really about, vs. what the players are saying it is about.

If the government hacks the iPhone themselves, they don't get the legal precedent they are so desperate to establish in this case. This paves the way for legislation that forces technology companies to install backdoors in software/hardware. This case is not about the data on the phone itself, the government is simply continuing the crypto wars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars

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

#238

Post by MacsHeadroom » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 8:23 AM UTC

timr wrote: post #218

aljones wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is also a brute force attack. The terrorist had a four-digit passcode. They're going to try 0000-9999 and find the one that works. They just need Apple to disable the software that wipes the device after ten bad passcode attempts. Everything that you've read about a "backdoor" or a "key" is totally uninformed commentary on the matter. The intarwebz are outraged ( outraged! ), but they don't even understand the d…

>this is also a brute force attack

The other times weren't though.

> they don't even understand the debate

Look in a mirror lately?

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

#239

Post by vectorjohn » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 8:25 AM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #204

haberman wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument just doesn't add up to me. Regardless of this court order, Apple already has possession of keys that can sign iOS updates to disable security features. So this "master key" already exists. Meanwhile the government is saying that Apple can delete the tool the moment after the court order is executed, so then what is there to steal? I just don't get the argument that this tool is any more of a "master key…

Monday, create a tool for phone A. Tuesday, delete the tool. Wednesday, recreate that same tool, but now for phone B. Thursday, delete the tool. Friday, recreate that same tool, but now for phone C. ... What do you think is going to happen? Oh yeah, there's the git logs too. This is not about one phone. It never was. It's about establishing a behavior. Also, there's no master key. It does not exist. Apple does not ha…

The master key they have is the ability to sign firmware updates for all phones that could disable security. The point is, it isn't a new master key. If the key was somehow lost, Apple phones would be vulnerable, just like in the dystopian hypotheticals being thrown around here.

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

#240

Post by lifeisstillgood » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 8:29 AM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #213

altitudinous wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is about the precedent. Consider that the current fully secure Apple device situation is point A, and the fully exploited your private data is easily extracted by criminals easily cracked Apple device situation is point Z. The FBI is currently arguing for point B - just this device. The argument is - it is so close to point A, there is no issue! If the FBI wins point B, then they will argue for point C. - it is so…

This is step by step slippery slope fallacy. You are not addressing the issue at hand. You are instead arguing that if we somehow don't take your side here, then there will never be another point at which we can argue the pros and cons of possible subsequent escalations or refusals. Which is why it's a fallacy.

This is a valid pointing out of a common fallacy, and I do not think merits the downvotes.

The OP is using fallacious reasoning, even if it is accurate reasoning :-)