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

FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 565 posts

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#431

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #380

"Lockdown Mode is a sometimes overlooked feature of Apple devices that broadly make[sic] them harder to hack." Funny to see disabling "features" itself described as "feature" Why not call it a "setting" Most iPhone users do not change default settings. That's why Google pays Apple billions of dollars for a default setting that sends data about users to Google "Lockdown Mode" is not a default setting The phrase "somet…

A "reduced attack surface" can also be a reduced surface for telemetry, data collection, surveillance and advertising services, thereby directly or indirectly causing a reduction in Apple revenues

Perhaps this could be a factor in why it's not a default setting

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#432

Post by seanw444 »

OGWhales wrote: post #403
noident wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very unusual and narrow exception involving "foregone conclusion doctrine", an important fact missed by Ars Technica but elaborated on by AP: https://apnews.com/general-news-49da3a1e71f74e1c98012611aedc...

> Authorities, citing a “foregone conclusion exception” to the Fifth Amendment, argued that Rawls could not invoke his right to self-incrimination because police already had evidence of a crime. The 3rd Circuit panel agreed, upholding a lower court decision. I do not follow the logic here, what does that even mean? It seems very dubious. And what happens if one legitimately forgets? They just get to keep you there fo…

[flagged]

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#433

Post by doublerabbit »

noname120 wrote: post #244
doublerabbit wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's why I keep my old iPhone XR on 15.x for jail breaking reasons. I purchased an a new phone specially for the later versions and online banking. Apple bought out all the jail breakers as Denuvo did for the game crackers.

> Apple bought out all the jail breakers > Denuvo did for the game crackers Do you have sources for these statements?

Like anything in that field its more NDA, antidotal.

> in 2018, the prominent Denuvo cracker known as "Voksi" (of REVOLT) was arrested in Bulgaria following a criminal complaint from Denuvo.

https://www.dsogaming.com/news/denuvo-has-sued-revolts-found...

That's how you get off such charges. I'll work for you, if you drop charges. There was a reddit post I can't find when EMPRESS had one of their episodes where she was asked if she wanted to work for. It's happened in the cracking scene before.

> The jailbreaking community is fractured, with many of its former members having joined private security firms or Apple itself. The few people still doing it privately are able to hold out for big payouts for finding iPhone vulnerabilities. And users themselves have stopped demanding jailbreaks, because Apple simply took jailbreakers’ best ideas and implemented them into iOS.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/iphone-jailbreak-life-death-...

And from the jail break community discord.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#434

Post by OGWhales »

seanw444 wrote: post #432
OGWhales wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Authorities, citing a “foregone conclusion exception” to the Fifth Amendment, argued that Rawls could not invoke his right to self-incrimination because police already had evidence of a crime. The 3rd Circuit panel agreed, upholding a lower court decision. I do not follow the logic here, what does that even mean? It seems very dubious. And what happens if one legitimately forgets? They just get to keep you there fo…

[flagged]

???

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#435

Post by redeeman »

parl_match wrote: post #319
patrickmay wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the knowledge of which finger to use protected as much as a passcode? Law enforcement might have the authority to physically hold the owner's finger to the device, but it seems that the owner has the right to refuse to disclose which finger is the right one. If law enforcement doesn't guess correctly in a few tries, the device could lock itself and require the passcode. Another reason to use my dog's nose instead…

I really wish Apple would offer a pin option on macos. For this reason, precisely. Either that, or an option to automatically disable touchid after a short amount of time (eg an hour or if my phone doesn't connect to the laptop)

uhm, are you saying its not possible to require an actual password to unlock osx?

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#436

Post by wan23 »

notyourwork wrote: post #423
nova22033 wrote: post #236

Remember...they can make you use touch id...they can't make you give them your password. https://x.com/runasand/status/2017659019251343763?s=20 The FBI was able to access Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Signal messages because she used Signal on her work laptop. The laptop accepted Touch ID for authentication, meaning the agents were allowed to require her to unlock it.

I don't get why I can be forced to use my biometrics to unlock but I cannot be forced to give a pin. Doesn't jive in my brain.

The fifth amendment gives you the right to be silent, but they didn't write in anything about biometrics.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#437

Post by quietsegfault »

notyourwork wrote: post #423
nova22033 wrote: post #236

Remember...they can make you use touch id...they can't make you give them your password. https://x.com/runasand/status/2017659019251343763?s=20 The FBI was able to access Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Signal messages because she used Signal on her work laptop. The laptop accepted Touch ID for authentication, meaning the agents were allowed to require her to unlock it.

I don't get why I can be forced to use my biometrics to unlock but I cannot be forced to give a pin. Doesn't jive in my brain.

[dead]

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#438

Post by JimA »

throwawayfour wrote: post #320
wackget wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Link which doesn't directly support website owned by unscrupulous trillionaire: https://xcancel.com/runasand/status/2017659019251343763?s=20

Good reminder to also set up something that does this automatically for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46526010

I generally avoid extensions that can read all sites (even if technically necessary), so use the suggestion found here [1] instead.

A few bookmarklets:

javascript:(function(){if (location.host.endsWith('x.com')) location.host='xcancel.com';})()

javascript:(function(){if (location.host.endsWith('youtube.com')) location.host='inv.nadeko.net';})()

javascript:(function(){if (location.hostname.endsWith('instagram.com')) {location.replace('https://imginn.com' + location.pathname);}})()

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1cc0uon/addin...

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#439

Post by quizzical8432 »

TheDong wrote: post #250

I find it so frustrating that Lockdown Mode is so all-or-nothing. I want some of the lockdown stuff (No facetime and message attachments from strangers, no link previews, no device connections), but like half of the other ones I don't want. Why can't I just toggle an iMessage setting for "no link preview, no attachments", or a general setting for "no automatic device connection to untrusted computers while locked"? W…

I’m with you on the shared photo albums. I’d been using lockdown mode for quite a while before I discovered this limitation, though. For me, this is one I’d like to be able to selectively enable (like the per-website/app settings). In my case, it was a one-off need, so I disabled lockdown mode, shared photos, then enabled it again.

The other feature I miss is screen time requests. This one is kinda weird - I’m sure there’s a reason they’re blocked, but it’s a message from Apple (or, directly from a trusted family member? I’m not 100% sure how they work). I still _recieve_ the notification, but it’s not actionable.

While I share with your frustration, though, I do understand why Apple might want to have it as “all-or-nothing”. If they allow users to enable even one “dangerous” setting, that ultimately compromises the entire security model. An attacker doesn’t care which way they can compromise your device. If there’s _one_ way in, that’s all they need.

Ultimately, for me the biggest PiTA with lockdown mode is not knowing if it’s to blame for a problem I’m having. I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve disabled and re-enabled it just to test something that should work, or if it’s the reason a feature/setting is not showing up. To be fair, most of the time it’s not the issue, but sometimes I just need to rule it out.

Re: FBI couldn't get into WaPo reporter's iPhone because Lockdown Mode enabled

#440

Post by deltastone »

notyourwork wrote: post #423
nova22033 wrote: post #236

Remember...they can make you use touch id...they can't make you give them your password. https://x.com/runasand/status/2017659019251343763?s=20 The FBI was able to access Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Signal messages because she used Signal on her work laptop. The laptop accepted Touch ID for authentication, meaning the agents were allowed to require her to unlock it.

I don't get why I can be forced to use my biometrics to unlock but I cannot be forced to give a pin. Doesn't jive in my brain.

It's something you know vs. something you have. That's how the legal system sees it. You might not tell someone the pin to your safe, but if police find the key to it, or hire a locksmith to drill out your safe, it's theirs with a warrant.

It's interesting in the case of social media companies. Technically the data held is the companies data (Google, Meta, etc.) however courts have ruled that a person still has an expectation of privacy and therefore police need a warrant.

Post reply on HN