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

251–260 of 293 posts

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

#251

Post by studentrob »

vectorjohn wrote: post #242
studentrob wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No employee at Apple is going to call him out on it, and everyone else can be written off as speculating. Additionally, that letter is written with very carefully fuzzy language so as to remain true-ish. As in, Apple can't make this change and guarantee that nobody else will use it. In the same way that any software change (which they do regularly) could open up a security flaw. That doesn't mean it's likely, or any…

> No employee at Apple is going to call him out on it, and everyone else can be written off as speculating.

I wouldn't put it past the NSA to have snapped up a former iOS developer for explicitly the purpose of breaking into iPhones. An ex employee could certainly call him out.

> Additionally, that letter is written with very carefully fuzzy language so as to remain true-ish.

Cook is trying to be as clear as possible to a public who doesn't understand encryption or why Apple is standing up to the FBI. That's a lot to swallow, and yes his letter is carefully worded for good reason. Given that there is a backdoor that Apple could create, it's not unthinkable that with more details, 3rd parties could figure out how to get in too.

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

#252

Post by studentrob »

XorNot wrote: post #219
studentrob wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No but you can get away with pretending to be an idiot. Or forgetful.

I think you greatly underestimate what it takes to rise to the top of a tech company. Pretending to be an idiot in tech matters doesn't generally work.

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

#253

Post by Mikho »

One of the interesting issues here is that national security depends on the corporation decision and the actually corporation can access the information on the device, but does not want to help the government to protect people from potential terrorist attack. FBI does not ask for backdoor codes and does not ask for breaking encryption and does not ask access to unauthorized info—the phone owner granted the permission. The only thing FBI ask is to not brick the phone and not erase the info while it tries different device locking code combination. There is nothing here that would break privacy or encryption.

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

#254

Post by vectorjohn »

studentrob wrote: post #251
vectorjohn wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No employee at Apple is going to call him out on it, and everyone else can be written off as speculating. Additionally, that letter is written with very carefully fuzzy language so as to remain true-ish. As in, Apple can't make this change and guarantee that nobody else will use it. In the same way that any software change (which they do regularly) could open up a security flaw. That doesn't mean it's likely, or any…

> No employee at Apple is going to call him out on it, and everyone else can be written off as speculating. I wouldn't put it past the NSA to have snapped up a former iOS developer for explicitly the purpose of breaking into iPhones. An ex employee could certainly call him out. > Additionally, that letter is written with very carefully fuzzy language so as to remain true-ish. Cook is trying to be as clear as possible…

> it's not unthinkable that with more details, 3rd parties could figure out how to get in too.

This sounds like a misunderstanding. No clever third parties are going to find a way to break code signing. To exploit the security hole Apple already created would require having Apple's signing certificate so that a phone could install the code. If it wasn't for the certificate, it would be quite a bit more trivial to hack a firmware to do a malicious thing and install it on any phone.

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

#255

Post by nickik »

prewett wrote: post #144
dmix wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardware chips with tamper protection can hold encryption keys which Apple wouldn't be able to modify. It is technically feasible and I'm pretty sure this is why people are saying Secure Enclave protects against this in newer iPhone models. This is also the idea behind TPM chips which are in almost every phone/laptop these days, so consumers couldn't tamper with DRM and other similar crypto systems.

I guess that assumes that the phone's drive is encrypted with the hardware key? Otherwise the software could just ignore the hardware. I find it ironic that this argument in support of TPM, etc. is being made for phones (not necessarily by you), but this same site has vigorously opposed it for PCs, especially Linux.

Nobody on the Linux side is opposed to TPM, Secure Boot and everything like that. The controversy is about who controls the key.

Apple can either create a special update key for the TrustedZone and distribute it to User (SmartCard in the package you buy the phone in) or they could just put in a non-upgradable system.

Both would work.

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

#256

Post by nickik »

dmix wrote: post #128
prewett wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you suggest that Apple do that? Somewhere there has to be some code to check if security passed. It is always feasible for Apple to remove/disable the security check in a custom version of iOS.

Hardware chips with tamper protection can hold encryption keys which Apple wouldn't be able to modify. It is technically feasible and I'm pretty sure this is why people are saying Secure Enclave protects against this in newer iPhone models. This is also the idea behind TPM chips which are in almost every phone/laptop these days, so consumers couldn't tamper with DRM and other similar crypto systems.

I think the Secure Enclave is still upgradable. Seems to me that apple should either make it non-upgradable, or give the upgrade key to users. Both would stop the FBI from comming to Apple with locked devices.

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

#257

Post by nickik »

wildmusings wrote: post #80
exodust wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Everyone should not back Apple. Let's crack that phone open. We then want Apple to improve their security so that no such request by governments would be possible in future. Tighten the security so that not even a special custom version of iOS would make a difference to the self destruct measures in place. Then we wouldn't need to waste any time arguing about it.

I've been trying to stir conversation on this point, to little success unfortunately. The whole affair is pretty damning for the tech industry. The people who should know better are parroting Apple's deceptive claims, and many more are just hopping on the anti-surveillance anti-FBI/NSA bandwagon because it fits their political narrative. Just to be clear, I'm against mandated backdoors in products. I should be allowe…

I actually agree with you. Apple should just make it it so that Apple CAN NOT do anything.

> If Apple had the phone's PIN stored in their database, do you think the government should be able to compel them to hand it over? And why is that any different?

Well, I think, they should not, but I don't claim its different.

Apple wants to have it both ways, build it so that they have full control and they can be compelled by nobody to give up that control. I would rather they build a system, where nobody is in control at all.

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

#258

Post by chopin »

tlrobinson wrote: post #227
aljones wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has explicitly stated they can do what is asked at every opportunity. You ever been responsible for writing secure software? It isn't easy. Locking it down to a single device is in principle possible. No one wants to be responsible for really doing it though if they can avoid it. Especially not when it is obvious this is not a one time thing. Not at all. You think every device manufacturer can do it without err…

Is it really that hard? Just make the very first thing executed a check for the specific device ID and crash immediately if it doesn't match. Since the code is signed the check can't be removed or changed.

How would you do the check? One must ensure that the ID can't be spoofed on the way to the code. This would only be the case with very special hardware. AFAIK this isn't the case here.

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

#259

Post by mathiasrw »

EdHominem wrote: post #174
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…

If the government honestly wanted that iPhone cracked it'd turn to someone like Chipworks and simply subpoena whatever info they needed from Apple. They're forcing Apple to kill its own children as a sick sort of game.

+1

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

#260

Post by touristtam »

yyyuuu wrote: post #228

I really wonder sometimes about the great gap there lies between the problems that we face in third world v/s the problems that are faced by people in first world countries. Here in Delhi, and even more so in rural parts of India, connectivity to services like internet,banking,healthcare etc. is still a luxury for the majority. Most people here wouldn't even understand this hot issue of iPhone unlocking request by FB…

I am with you on that, despite the fact that I am part of the rich 20% world population [1]. But you will probably find this issue to be drown soon enough under the flow of other first world news our media love to swamp us with.

That being said, I believe part of the issue is the balance of power has changed into corporate hands with marketing taking a front role into leading us (the mass of consumers). The morale values that were one of the corner stones of previous institutions like the Church or the State to motivate nations are now just another commodity traded openly by economical actors that have but one goal: the bottom line.

Should we find a way to coerce those ruling private entities that are corporation into performing actions that would benefit the rest of the society, we might actually be able to spread the wealth a bit better. Until then, you and me are bound to fight over the left overs of those new overlords.

Sorry for the long rant, which is partly ironic.

[1]: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/13/half-world-weal...

Post reply on HN