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

Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 314 posts

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#291

Post by Kinnard »

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…

I disagree. I think the only effective remedy is strong, successful cryptography.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#292

Post by bmelton »

gravypod wrote: post #259
bmelton wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has not done "this" before. Apple may have unlocked phones for older models (with less security), but with the upgrades to iOS for versions 5 and 6, this is a much different ask. The FBI is hoping to have Apple develop a new iOS that does not automatically wipe the device after invalid password attempts, then use their signing keys to push a deployment of that operating system onto this specific phone. Nobody e…

Yes but they have unlocked phones before and they will conceivably continue to do it. It's not about the difficulty of the task, it is about the principle. I haven't heard of the FBI asking to get apple's keys before, but that is crazy.

Ostensibly, they made the security increases in iOS to prevent from being able to comply with these types of requests, ensuring that their software was as secure as possible.

Aside from that, a fourth amendment search or seizure cannot generally compel someone to open a door. The usual logic is that it allows agents entry; the trade-off of letting them in is that you don't have to replace your door after.

This isn't a matter of standing aside while the agents effect the search, it's a whole different thing. Put into (what will assuredly be a bad) analogy, whereas a physical property search involves opening a door, or standing aside while the cops break down the door, this scenario is more akin to demanding that Apple build an entirely new house, one without doors, then removing the old building and installing the new building in its place so that the cops can enter.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#293

Post by pfg »

4ad wrote: post #245
542458 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if the slow authentication is inherent from running the algorithm on the chip, rather than a having been slowed down artificially There is no known cryptographic algorithm that provides inherently increasing times. The slowdown is entirely artificial, and it is believed that an update could remove it.

I was under the impression that the algorithm (running on the secure enclave?) takes at least 200ms. Yes, obviously longer times are artificial, but my question is whether the 200ms baseline is artificial or not. Of course this doesn't really matter at all if modified software could just read the key from the chip. That is the most interesting question. So, can it? Or can the software only provide data to the chip, t…

Their hash algorithm takes ~80ms per attempt. All crypto happens on a dedicated AES engine. Files are encrypted with a key derived from UID (device key which cannot be extracted via firmware) and passphrase.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#294

Post by orionblastar »

atmosx wrote: post #177
orionblastar wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Superman vs. Batman, they are making a new movie about that. Superman caused a lot of damage in The Man of Steel movie and many people died as a result of his fight with Zod that ended up with him breaking Zod's neck and killing him. The movie could have gone a different way if he asked his Father's hologram about Zod, and any weaknesses he might have during the 24 hours he had to think over. Then use the craft he ca…

Given the powers these two characters have, Superman would kill Batman while watching a movie with Lois Lein and eating pop-corn - without Lois realising he was gone for a split of a second. ps. Not big on DC/Marvel comics/movies, they're all the same to me but keep some f*cking consistency plz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDIR_e3XRKM

Frank Millar's The Dark Knight tells a different story.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#295

Post by pfg »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #263
dcvuob wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an disingenuous representation of how the attacks works. That attacks OPSEC, not the Bitlocker itself. Any full-disk encryption is "vulnerable", to this kind of attack. The page even explains this: https://github.com/carmaa/inception#awesome-but-why https://github.com/carmaa/inception#unlock

Not really. Full disk encryption using Pointsec/other commercial offerings, or as you typically do it on Linux with LUKS+dmcrypt, asks for the passphrase before the OS has loaded any Firewire drivers. In which case a fully shut-down computer is not vulnerable to this attack, ie. you have protection against evil maids, thieves, FBI etc. But with Bitlocker, it only requires a password at Windows login, and by then all…

IIRC BitLocker with pre-boot authentication mitigates DMA attacks. Most Windows hardware doesn't come with FireWire or Thunderbolt ports nowadays. Microsoft recommends pre-boot auth for devices with DMA ports.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#296

Post by EdHominem »

andrepd wrote: post #254
p01926 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should the government be able to access citizen's digital data with a court order? And if so, how can that be enabled without compromising the general security of the device? No. And that's both impossible and a massive compromise. This case helps us tackle that first question. Here the murderer's personal phone and computer hard drives were destroyed — rendering them "above/beyond the law". Just because some data…

Why not? Police can search your house or seize your mail with a court order. Why can't they search your phone or computer?

Because they can't. A court order can't let them fly. Nor can it compel you to build them wings. (Though you may have to buy them a can of Red Bull.)

The police were already searching you and your house so we enacted rules to try to control that. Those rules didn't enable the searching - they placed restrictions on the applicability of evidence to reduce the desire to search improperly.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#297

Post by rustynails »

rayiner wrote: post #280
p01926 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should the government be able to access citizen's digital data with a court order? And if so, how can that be enabled without compromising the general security of the device? No. And that's both impossible and a massive compromise. This case helps us tackle that first question. Here the murderer's personal phone and computer hard drives were destroyed — rendering them "above/beyond the law". Just because some data…

> terrorism will never touch the average citizen anywhere near the extent of other tragedies like illness, accidents or natural disasters This argument ascribes zero weight to the injustice of terrorist attacks. Your logic--that a death is a death--does not admit distinguishing between someone dying in a freak accident, someone being killed by a drunk driver, and someone being murdered in cold blood. It's all the sam…

Possibly. An individual murder means it is unlikely to have an impact to you. A serial killer will often impact a demographic in a city. A mass murderer will often impact a demographic in a large area or country. A terrorist will usually target a demographic in many countries, but on a much smaller scale than a mass murderer.

I currently think a mass murderer would be a greater threat to the world collectively, but the terrorist triggers the fear that any location might be attacked. Hence, while much less destructive, has the "me" factor that pulls heart strings of society at large.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#298

Post by sliverstorm »

Chefkoochooloo wrote: post #289
sliverstorm wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the only angle here. Apple was asked to aide the FBI in attacking a phone, not to design bad crypto. (They may have also been asked to design bad crypto, but that's not what is happening here )

But what you are forgetting is that Apple has been fully compliant and cooperative throughout this investigation. The problem with building a backdoor into a highly encrypted security system gives pathways for others to find the same backdoor. If other hackers knew there is a for-sure way to gain access and hack an iPhone, they will find that path. With today's plethora of technology, a line needs to be crossed in or…

The pathway is obvious- build a signed image that lets you guess unlimited passwords at maximum speed. Apple doesn't have to do it to make it apparent it would work. The avenue is already in use:

As many jailbreakers are familiar, firmware can be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade (DFU) Mode. Once an iPhone enters DFU mode, it will accept a new firmware image over a USB cable.

The special "backdoor" Apple has access to:

Before any firmware image is loaded by an iPhone, the device first checks whether the firmware has a valid signature from Apple. This signature check is why the FBI cannot load new software onto an iPhone on their own — the FBI does not have the secret keys that Apple uses to sign firmware.

http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/17/apple-can-comply-with...

As for "the attack firmware could leak"- well, so could the signing keys.

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#299

Post by 4ad »

pfg wrote: post #293
4ad wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that the algorithm (running on the secure enclave?) takes at least 200ms. Yes, obviously longer times are artificial, but my question is whether the 200ms baseline is artificial or not. Of course this doesn't really matter at all if modified software could just read the key from the chip. That is the most interesting question. So, can it? Or can the software only provide data to the chip, t…

Their hash algorithm takes ~80ms per attempt. All crypto happens on a dedicated AES engine. Files are encrypted with a key derived from UID (device key which cannot be extracted via firmware) and passphrase.

So if the key can't be extracted via the firmware, someone updating the firmware, even with malicious intent, should not be a problem, am I correct?

Re: Justice Department Wants Apple to Unlock Nine More iPhones

#300

Post by pfg »

4ad wrote: post #299
pfg wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their hash algorithm takes ~80ms per attempt. All crypto happens on a dedicated AES engine. Files are encrypted with a key derived from UID (device key which cannot be extracted via firmware) and passphrase.

So if the key can't be extracted via the firmware, someone updating the firmware, even with malicious intent, should not be a problem, am I correct?

With a sufficiently complex passphrase, it's not a problem. With a typical 6-digit PIN, disabling the artificial delay and auto-wipe (which is possible via firmware updates) is all you need for a successful brute-force attack.
Post reply on HN