Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones • Hacker News Board

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#131

Post by zaroth » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 5:54 AM UTC

fooey wrote: post #110

cft wrote: post #19

Note how Android unlocking demands never came up in this discussion. That's because the phones are vulnerable. I am a Nexus user.

Android hasn't come up, but more notable to me, why hasn't this come up over Windows machines? Bitlocker has been a thing for quite a while now. Has the FBI/DoJ never encountered an encrypted desktop or server before? or has it not been a problem when they have?

I believe that by default Microsoft keeps a copy of your BitLocker key and is happy to provide it to the police when requested. Also, see Bill Gates recent comments on the topic.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#132

Post by gravypod » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 5:59 AM UTC

I'm confused. From what I understand apple has been doing this for some time. I even remember someone saying that apple did this many times before. Even if apple isn't the one doing this, there are also plenty of people who are familiar with low level vulnerabilities of iPhones that can essentially do the same tasks.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#133

Post by Falkon1313 » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 6:03 AM UTC

nickysielicki wrote: post #86

brians wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the new software they are to write also tried 10000 pass codes, would that count?

No, because if his password wasn't 0000-9999, Apple still would have complied with the order and the phone would still be encrypted. They're not ordered to decrypt it. And I think when a layman hears "unlock", they're led to believe that means decrypt.

I think when a layman hears "unlock" they're more likely to picture a scene from a police detective drama when the investigators ask a landlord to unlock a deceased tenant's apartment so that they can investigate.

If it were rephrased as "Hello Mr. Landlord, we're ordering you to open a machine shop and pay several employees to develop a new lockpicking device that could be copied infinitely for free and which would allow us, or anyone really... a North Korean agency, an organized crime syndicate, or a jealous and abusive ex-lover perhaps, to more easily break into any of the homes of billions of people around the world with or without reason or warrant?" then the layman might perceive it a little differently.

That seems to be like the message that Apple's trying to communicate, but I don't know if they're getting it across clearly enough for most people.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#134

Post by CaptSpify » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 6:08 AM UTC

fooey wrote: post #109

It seems hard for me to believe that Apple now has at least 10 instances where the government is trying to force them to decrypt their phones, and this hasn't happened with Google or MS yet. I don't recall ever hearing a big standoff with MS refusing to decrypt a Windows desktop or server. Is encryption just that much more common on Apple devices? or is Apple just the first ones to make this all public?

Part of apples winning strategy here is that they claim that they don't sell your data to advertizers. Google and MS are a different story. This means that Goolge/MS have a much bigger incentive to store your data in "the cloud" so that they can read it. As Apple has always claimed privacy as one of their features, by fighting this, they stick to that narrative.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#135

Post by newman314 » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 6:11 AM UTC

jrapdx3 wrote: post #65

The article describes the Justice Dept. doing exactly what has been so widely predicted on HN and elsewhere. Doesn't seem like good timing on the government's part to publicly announce the intention to seek numerous iPhone "unlockings". Rather it plays into Apple's argument about unleashing a torrent of court-ordered demands which will have adverse consequences for security. Legal minds should weigh in, but I'm think…

What's alarming is that sites like The Verge are posting articles like this [1] essentially condoning the FBI's position.

I would have expected them to know better.

[1] http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11100152/apple-fbi-terrori...

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#136

Post by rasz_pl » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 6:13 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #21

arrty88 wrote: post #2

> The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., foreground, and New York City’s police commissioner, William J. Bratton, behind him, say they have about 175 iPhones they have been unable to unlock. Wait, how many have they been able to unlock and how? Sheer luck?

As long as the "delete after ten failed attempts" feature is off, you can try as many times as you want. It'll be slow going (the phone institutes delays after a bunch of failures), but I'm sure feeding SSNs, phone numbers, birthdays, etc. into it gets decent returns.

>> still works even with the “Erase data after 10 attempts” configuration setting enabled. Our initial analysis indicates that the IP Box is able to bypass this restriction by connecting directly to the iPhone’s power source and aggressively cutting the power after each failed PIN attempt, but before the attempt has been synchronized to flash memory

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#137

Post by rasz_pl » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 6:16 AM UTC

fooey wrote: post #109

It seems hard for me to believe that Apple now has at least 10 instances where the government is trying to force them to decrypt their phones, and this hasn't happened with Google or MS yet. I don't recall ever hearing a big standoff with MS refusing to decrypt a Windows desktop or server. Is encryption just that much more common on Apple devices? or is Apple just the first ones to make this all public?

remember that time TrueCrypt got hijacked by 3 letter agency and shutdown while recommending BitLocker? This makes clear Microsoft's willingness to cooperate.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#138

Post by nickysielicki » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 6:20 AM UTC

Falkon1313 wrote: post #133

nickysielicki wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because if his password wasn't 0000-9999, Apple still would have complied with the order and the phone would still be encrypted. They're not ordered to decrypt it. And I think when a layman hears "unlock", they're led to believe that means decrypt.

I think when a layman hears "unlock" they're more likely to picture a scene from a police detective drama when the investigators ask a landlord to unlock a deceased tenant's apartment so that they can investigate. If it were rephrased as "Hello Mr. Landlord, we're ordering you to open a machine shop and pay several employees to develop a new lockpicking device that could be copied infinitely for free and which would…

> "[...] to more easily break into [...]

That's where your analogy breaks down. This hardly makes it easier. If North Korea or FBI or NSA or a criminal organization wanted to break into your iPhone, and this backdoor existed and was distributed, they would have to externally flash it with firmware and then hook up a controller that tricks the digitizer so that they can brute force the passcode, trying each one synchronously on a shitty mobile processor SoC.

Is that really less complicated than externally reading the memory itself and using John the Ripper and a supercomputer? Is it meaningfully less complicated?

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#139

Post by teacup50 » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 6:21 AM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #121

vectorjohn wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it different than getting a phone company to install a wire tap? What you describe is not what's being asked for. What the FBI wants is a tool to get into this phone. They will definitely want to get into more phones in the future, but that's not the same as a single tool that gets into any phone. It can be a new one every time. If it wasn't possible to make such a tool, I'd be a lot more outraged. But it is.…

The difference is simply that telecommunications are heavily regulated (see CALEA) where if you want to be a service provider you have to provide wiretap functionality. Personal computers in general are not covered by any such regulation. It is legal to create and use encryption on your own device without building in a government backdoor. For now.

Ironically, the biggest threat to an unregulated computer future is the massive centralization of device control via platform DRM, in the hands of just a few companies like Apple.

CALEA was extended to ISPs once the industry coalesced into a much smaller number of central players.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#140

Post by Bud » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 6:22 AM UTC

awesomepantsm wrote: post #128

edraferi wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes total sense that the givernment would use it's forensic capabilities whenever the need arises. The question at hand is: "can the All Writs Act compel a company to proactively defeat its own security measures?" The answer will apply to all cases. The more important question is "Should the government be able to access citizen's digital data with a court order? And if so, how can that be enabled without comprom…

>Should the government be able to access citizen's digital data with a court order? I don't think that's a good question at all. Regardless of the ruling, they aren't going to up and declare encryption illegal. You can't throw a legal requirement at math to stop working.

This is dangerously naive. You think the government can't do something illogical? You just wait for it. You think the government can't outlaw the use of something, even if it's an ineffectual half-measure that does more harm than good? Were you alive during the "War on Drugs"?