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

Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 415 posts

Re: Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack

#401

Post by abalone »

khedoros wrote: post #395
abalone wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, you can opt in to destroy-when-I-die security. You can encrypt notes or use a zero-knowledge backup provider (backblaze offers this). But for most people that's the wrong default for things like decades of family photos. In absence of a will it would be terrible to assume that a person meant to have all their assets destroyed instead of handed down. It should be an explicit opt-in. The default should be…

> But for most people that's the wrong default for things like decades of family photos. That seems like a weird assumption, that there'd be a single person with access to an account containing the only copies of decades of family photos. If someone else has account access or if there are copies of the photos elsewhere, then "destroy-when-I-die" isn't a big problem. On the other hand, it also violates the way that I…

Far from a "weird assumption", that is exactly how most families operate. There's a family computer with all the photos on it that's always logged in, but maybe only dad or mom knows the iCloud password ("hey mom what's the password again?..") Or maybe they are split between family member iPhones, and they just show them to each other when they want to see them.

It would be a pretty big bummer for most families if when a family member passed away so did all those memories. That's probably not what they would have wanted. Or even if they just forgot their password.. that when they reset it all their photos go poof.

You are I might understand the consequences, but for most people it should really be a clear opt-in to "you can turn on totally unhackable encryption, but if you lose your pw you are totally screwed".

Re: Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack

#402

Post by pc2g4d »

teacup50 wrote: post #345
rimantas wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM for your own data is called privacy.

Apple, a 3rd-party, holds the master keys, and you don't. So no, that's not DRM for your own data.

But that's simply not entirely true. The encryption keys for the phone's data reside on the phone and are only available with the PIN/password.

Apple does hold the keys for software updates, which can be pushed without user approval. Maybe that's what you were referring to.

Re: Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack

#403

Post by kazinator »

ksk wrote: post #392
kazinator wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have no access to the firmware, but neither does anyone else, then it's just a part of the hardware. That is okay. I don't care whether a given processor is microcoded via a tiny ROM, or whether it is all hard-wired gates; the difference is just in the instruction execution timings. We are not "hosed" in any way by this. As soon as the microcode is writable, then we have questions: can anyone write any arbitrary…

>If [...] but neither does anyone else, then it's just a part of the hardware That has never been the case, for practical manufacturing reasons. >As soon as the microcode is writable, then we have questions: It has been writable for more than a decade I think.

Uh, microcode has been around since the 1960's!

Any aspect of the machine which is data-driven is de facto hardware if that data is fixed in read-only memory.

Consider than an AND gate can just be memory. The two inputs can be treated as a two bit address: 00, 01, 10, or 11. If we stuff in the values 0, 0, 0, 1 into the 1-bit content cells at these addresses, we have an AND gate.

If this memory is ROM, then the overall circuit is not distinguishable from a conventional AND gate where a few transistors do the signaling directly.

Re: Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack

#404

Post by khedoros »

abalone wrote: post #401
khedoros wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But for most people that's the wrong default for things like decades of family photos. That seems like a weird assumption, that there'd be a single person with access to an account containing the only copies of decades of family photos. If someone else has account access or if there are copies of the photos elsewhere, then "destroy-when-I-die" isn't a big problem. On the other hand, it also violates the way that I…

Far from a "weird assumption", that is exactly how most families operate. There's a family computer with all the photos on it that's always logged in, but maybe only dad or mom knows the iCloud password ("hey mom what's the password again?..") Or maybe they are split between family member iPhones, and they just show them to each other when they want to see them. It would be a pretty big bummer for most families if wh…

> that is exactly how most families operate.

Do you have non-anecdotal evidence for that? Among my own friends and family, there are some images that only exist on one device or account, but most of the stuff likely to draw interest ends up somewhere else (a shared Dropbox account, e-mail attachments, on Facebook, copied onto some form of external storage).

There are likely some demographic groups that are more likely to behave one way than the other, and that could perhaps account for our differing experiences.

On second though, it is the easiest way to use the account (each person having an account on each device). I wonder what percentage of people that would benefit from it actually use the Family Sharing option?

Re: Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack

#405

Post by ianamartin »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #183
ianamartin wrote: post #147

What I want is a service that deletes all my online presence after I die. A deadswitch. All texts, messages, emails, facebook posts, pictures anywhere, everything . I want it all to go when I do. Hell, I want some of it to go now. After I'm gone, I want to leave no part of my existence on the internet. I realize that's not possible. But I want to minimize my footprint. It is totally possible for a local device. I hav…

When something you create is public, you no longer have a right to dictate it. You do not have a right to be forgotten. That would be an attempt at some sort of thought control, and you don't get to tell us that this comment you just wrote can and should be forgotten. If I choose to remember it, outside of your wishes, there's nothing you can do about it. Private information is another matter, but when people presume…

Umm excuse me, but go yourself. You do not in any way own anything I create just because you may or may not have seen it on the Internet.

I am not a public figure simply because I walk around in public. My words do not belong to you simply because I put them in a place where you can see them.

Everything about your post is wrong in the worst possible ways. You are the opposite of the idea of freedom of information. You are literally arguing in favor of information tyranny.

Please go home and do something besides posting on the Internet.

Re: Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack

#406

Post by nickik »

startupljackson wrote: post #247
throwaway1666 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Secure Enclave is explicitly not TrustZone per Apples iOS Security Guide. It's a separate core in the SoC running on L4.

Aww shit.. embedded crypto hypervisors all up in this hood.

Wopw wopw

Re: Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack

#407

Post by nickik »

teacup50 wrote: post #96
tptacek wrote: post #2

They're presumably already 99% of the way there. If the Secure Enclave can be updated on a locked phone, all they need to do is stop allowing that, right? To me, the more profound consideration is this: if you use a strong alphanumeric password to unlock your phone, there is nothing Apple has been able to do for many years to unlock your phone. The AES-XTS key that protects data on the device is derived from your pas…

They're not anywhere near 99% of the way there; they've destroyed the heterogeneous decentralized ecosystem that broad security requires. Locking themselves out of the Secure Enclave isn't anywhere near sufficient. As long as the device software and trust mechanisms are totally opaque and centrally controlled by Apple, the whole thing is just a facade. There's almost nothing Apple can't push to the phone, and the aud…

We all understand that as long as apple can update the phone the can do all kinds of bad things.

The important thing about the secure enclave thing is that it pushes security over the line so that the attacker has to comprimise you befor you do whatever it is that will get you on somebodys shitlist.

Re: Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack

#408

Post by nickik »

cromwellian wrote: post #189
thomaspurchas wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to make the assumption that corrupting the secure enclave firmware is easy, or that its RAM is exposed of chip. The entire point of an secure enclave is to completely enclose all the hardware and software needed to generate encryption keys in a single lump of silicon. This means that all of its processing requirements (it's a complete co-processor) are on chip, it's RAM is on chip (not shared with it the mai…

I don't make that assumption, I worked on developing TPM modules myself in the 90s at research labs, and our prototypes had even more anti-tampering than so far revealed about Secure Enclave/Trustzone: we had micro-wire-meshes in the packaging to self-destruct on drilling or decapping, we had anti-ultrasonic and anti-TEMPEST shielding. I'm pretty familiar. The point is that state actors have vast resources to pull of…

Interesting stuff, cool post.

Seems to me when we are at a point were every time the NSA wants to get at some data, the have to start a heroic effort of attacking low level hardware, we are in a pretty good state in terms of device security.

Re: Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack

#409

Post by fluxquanta »

abalone wrote: post #401
khedoros wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But for most people that's the wrong default for things like decades of family photos. That seems like a weird assumption, that there'd be a single person with access to an account containing the only copies of decades of family photos. If someone else has account access or if there are copies of the photos elsewhere, then "destroy-when-I-die" isn't a big problem. On the other hand, it also violates the way that I…

Far from a "weird assumption", that is exactly how most families operate. There's a family computer with all the photos on it that's always logged in, but maybe only dad or mom knows the iCloud password ("hey mom what's the password again?..") Or maybe they are split between family member iPhones, and they just show them to each other when they want to see them. It would be a pretty big bummer for most families if wh…

I see what you're saying, and I know that I'm the odd man out here. My original comment stems mostly from my own messed up familial situation. My parents, (most) siblings and I don't get along very well, and I'm single.

If I were to die today I wouldn't want my personal photos, online history, or private writing to fall into the hands of my family. Hell, I don't really even want my physical assets to go to them (something I really should address in a will one of these days to donate it all to charity).

There has been a lot of fighting and backstabbing over who gets what when relatives have died in the past, and the more emotional items (like photographs) have been used to selfishly garner sympathy online through "likes" and "favorites" and it makes me sick. My position is that if you didn't make the effort to get to know a person while they were alive, you should lose the privilege of using their private thoughts for your own emotional gain after they're gone. And I do realize how selfish that sounds on my part, but in my current position I feel like it's justified. If I got a long term partner I would probably change my mind on that.

So yes, an opt-in would be ideal for me, but I don't think many online companies provide that right now.

Re: Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack

#410

Post by dang »

ianamartin wrote: post #405
dclowd9901 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When something you create is public, you no longer have a right to dictate it. You do not have a right to be forgotten. That would be an attempt at some sort of thought control, and you don't get to tell us that this comment you just wrote can and should be forgotten. If I choose to remember it, outside of your wishes, there's nothing you can do about it. Private information is another matter, but when people presume…

Umm excuse me, but go yourself. You do not in any way own anything I create just because you may or may not have seen it on the Internet. I am not a public figure simply because I walk around in public. My words do not belong to you simply because I put them in a place where you can see them. Everything about your post is wrong in the worst possible ways. You are the opposite of the idea of freedom of information. Yo…

Please don't post uncivil, unsubstantive comments to HN.
Post reply on HN