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

91–100 of 565 posts

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

#91

Post by pc86 »

whynotminot wrote: post #50
pc86 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: What are the "valid concerns" about people securing their computing devices against third parties?

I get so annoyed by this Socratic line of questioning because it’s extremely obvious. Terrorist has plans and contacts on laptop/phone. Society has a very reasonable interest in that information. But of course there is the rational counter argument of “the government designates who is a terrorist”, and the Trump admin has gleefully flouted norms around that designation endangering rule of law. So all of us are adults…

At the risk of being kind of ass, which I've been trying to be better about lately, I'm going to offer some advice. If you can't even respond to a question about secure computing without bringing American presidential politics into things, perhaps you need to take a break from the news for a few weeks.

The reason I asked that question is because I don't think it's complicated. I should be able to lock down my device such that no other human being on the planet can see or access anything on it. It's mine. I own it. I can do with it whatever I please, and any government that says otherwise is diametrically opposed to my rights as a human being.

You are more likely to be struck by lightning while holding two winning lottery tickets from different lotteries than you are to be killed by an act of terrorism today. This is pearl-clutching, authoritarian nonsense. To echo the sibling comment, society does not get to destroy my civil rights because some inbred religious fanatics in a cave somewhere want to blow up a train.

Edit: And asking for someone to says "there are concerns!" to proffer even a single one is not a Socratic line of questioning, it's basic inquiry.

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

#92

Post by whynotminot »

anonymous908213 wrote: post #85
whynotminot wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decided absolute privacy in all circumstances is a fundamental human right? I don’t think any government endorses that position. I don’t know what international law you speak of. You’re basing your argument on an axiom that I don’t think everyone would agree with. This sounds like a Tim Cook aphorism (right before he hands the iCloud keys to the CCP) — not anything with any real legal basis.

Article 12 of the United Nation's Declaration of Human Rights: > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy [...] which has later been affirmed to include digital privacy. > I don’t think any government endorses that position. Many governments are in flagrant violation of even their own privacy laws, but that does not make those laws any less real. The UN's notion of human rights were an "ax…

> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy

“Arbitrary” meaning you better have good reasons! Which implies there are or can be good reasons for which your privacy can be violated.

You’re misreading that to mean your privacy is absolute by UN law.

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

#93

Post by 3pt14159 »

steve-atx-7600 wrote: post #67
Arubis wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has long been true. In a pinch you can mash the power button 5+ times to require a key code at next unlock.

Also, on iPhone, if you have face ID turned on, you can hold power+volume down (may differ depending on model) to force a passcode.

This doesn’t work for my iPhone that’s about three years old.

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

#94

Post by nutjob2 »

pc86 wrote: post #74
shaky-carrousel wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corrupt government officials gunning down inconvenient people.

I'd love to hear what you think that has to do with this?

If we've learned anything from this administration it is that the government can ignore the law longer than you can stay alive. Arming yourself against lawless government in every legal way is advisable.

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

#95

Post by ChrisArchitect »

Previously, direct link to the court doc:

FBI unable to extract data from iPhone 13 in Lockdown Mode in high profile case [pdf]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.58...

(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843967)

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

#96

Post by bayindirh »

pc86 wrote: post #23
hnrayst wrote: post #4

[flagged]

Serious question: What are the "valid concerns" about people securing their computing devices against third parties?

I don't have to have any concern to be able to secure my device against third parties, it's just good operational discipline.

I don't do anything classified, or store something I don't want to be found out. On the other hand, equally I don't want anyone to be able to get and fiddle a device which is central to my life.

That's all.

It's not "I have nothing to hide" (which I don't actually have), but I don't want to put everything in the open.

Security is not something we shall earn, but shall have at the highest level by default.

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

#97

Post by quenix »

boring-human wrote: post #62

Can a hacked phone (such as one that was not in Lockdown Mode at one point in time) persist in a hacked state? Obviously, the theoretical answer is yes, given an advanced-enough exploit. But let's say Apple is unaware of a specific rootkit. If each OS update is a wave, is the installed exploit more like a rowboat or a frigate? Will it likely be defeated accidentally by minor OS changes, or is it likely to endure? Thi…

Forget OS updates. The biggest obstacle to exploit persistence: a good old hard system reboot.

Modern iOS has an incredibly tight secure chain-of-trust bootloader. If you shut your device to a known-off state (using the hardware key sequence), on power on, you can be 99.999% certain only Apple-signed code will run all the way from secureROM to iOS userland. The exception is if the secureROM is somehow compromised and exploited remotely (this requires hardware access at boot-time so I don't buy it).

So, on a fresh boot, you are almost definitely running authentic Apple code. The easiest path to a form of persistence is reusing whatever vector initially pwned you (malicious attachment, website, etc) and being clever in placing it somewhere iOS will attempt to read it again on boot (and so automatically get pwned again).

But honestly, exploiting modern iOS is already difficult enough (exploits go for tens millions $USD), persistence is an order of magnitude more difficult.

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

#99

Post by vincenzothgreat »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #65
hnrayst wrote: post #4

[flagged]

With the US descending more and more into fascism (as this case highlights yet again), I wonder what will happen to these features in the future. Especially now that the tech moguls of silicon valley stopped standing up to Trump and instead started kissing his ass. Tim Cook in particular seems to be the kind of person that rather is on the rich side of history than the right side. What if the administration realizes…

How is it turning into fascism?

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

#100

Post by skeptic_ai »

hnrayst wrote: post #4

[flagged]

Still go to prison for not showing. So until devices have multiple pins for plausible deniability we are still screwed.

What’s so hard to make 2-3 pins and each to access different logged in apps and files.

If Apple/android was serious about it would implement it, but from my research seems to be someone that it’s against it, as it’s too good.

I don’t want to remove my Banking apps when I go travel or in “dangerous” places. If you re kidnapped you will be forced to send out all your money.

Post reply on HN