Apple and encryption
18 February 2016, 11:07 AM
#31
http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/...i-court-order/
Though I don't agree with some of the decisions Apple make I'm with them on this one. Back doors don't tend to stay secret or non-accessible forever...
18 February 2016, 11:13 AM
#32
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35601035
Explains it a bit better. The FBI are not asking Apple to compromise iOS security, it only applies to this phone. It even says Apple can destroy the one thing they need once it has been given to the FBI.
So Apple already have the tech to do it, it's a bit disingenuous of them to take the stance they. This is not opening up a back door to any other device.
Explains it a bit better. The FBI are not asking Apple to compromise iOS security, it only applies to this phone. It even says Apple can destroy the one thing they need once it has been given to the FBI.
So Apple already have the tech to do it, it's a bit disingenuous of them to take the stance they. This is not opening up a back door to any other device.
18 February 2016, 11:34 AM
#34
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
New firmware can be written in DFU mode but the phone will only accept a firmware that has been signed by Apple. This is essentially what the FBI are requesting.
http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/...i-court-order/
Though I don't agree with some of the decisions Apple make I'm with them on this one. Back doors don't tend to stay secret or non-accessible forever...
http://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/02/...i-court-order/
Though I don't agree with some of the decisions Apple make I'm with them on this one. Back doors don't tend to stay secret or non-accessible forever...
18 February 2016, 12:17 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
US and IT security aren't great buddies, stuxnet has been great since they released that into the wild...
Those of you arguing that it's fine, we have nothing to hide etc. clearly don't understand what is actually at stake here - it's not just a bleeding liberals thing, it's more about putting all of our data security at risk. The "I have nothing to hide" angle is completely irrelevant.
18 February 2016, 12:42 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Do you really think that iof someone was had the skill and determination they couldn't get in?
Apple arn't saying it cant be done, they are saying they wont. If apple can do it, other people can too. Give it a year and the hack will be out there anyway. How do you think security flaws are found?
Apple arn't saying it cant be done, they are saying they wont. If apple can do it, other people can too. Give it a year and the hack will be out there anyway. How do you think security flaws are found?
18 February 2016, 01:04 PM
#37
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually agree with you, Jack. This is a very un-cool move by US gov, great way to screw up more security for people than you would actually give them.
US and IT security aren't great buddies, stuxnet has been great since they released that into the wild...
Those of you arguing that it's fine, we have nothing to hide etc. clearly don't understand what is actually at stake here - it's not just a bleeding liberals thing, it's more about putting all of our data security at risk. The "I have nothing to hide" angle is completely irrelevant.
US and IT security aren't great buddies, stuxnet has been great since they released that into the wild...
Those of you arguing that it's fine, we have nothing to hide etc. clearly don't understand what is actually at stake here - it's not just a bleeding liberals thing, it's more about putting all of our data security at risk. The "I have nothing to hide" angle is completely irrelevant.
But, it won't screw up security for anyone else. The solution can be applied to that single phone. Apple have not denied it can be done, they are denying a US warrant, which is as worrying a precedent as the one you claim for everyone's security (which in fact, it isn't!).
Whilst I agree that the "nothing to hide argument" is somewhat fallacious, on the flip side, I doubt many of those people would be stood on the parapet shouting "it's ok government, I fully understand why my family was blown up when you could have prevented it by having access to intelligence that would have prevented it. I'd rather see my kids limbs strewn across the street than agree to that!".......
Choices, choices, eh?
18 February 2016, 01:04 PM
#38
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Do you really think that iof someone was had the skill and determination they couldn't get in?
Apple arn't saying it cant be done, they are saying they wont. If apple can do it, other people can too. Give it a year and the hack will be out there anyway. How do you think security flaws are found?
Apple arn't saying it cant be done, they are saying they wont. If apple can do it, other people can too. Give it a year and the hack will be out there anyway. How do you think security flaws are found?
18 February 2016, 01:06 PM
#39
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
But, it won't screw up security for anyone else. The solution can be applied to that single phone. Apple have not denied it can be done, they are denying a US warrant, which is as worrying a precedent as the one you claim for everyone's security (which in fact, it isn't!).
Whilst I agree that the "nothing to hide argument" is somewhat fallacious, on the flip side, I doubt many of those people would be stood on the parapet shouting "it's ok government, I fully understand why my family was blown up when you could have prevented it by having access to intelligence that would have prevented it. I'd rather see my kids limbs strewn across the street than agree to that!".......
Choices, choices, eh?
Whilst I agree that the "nothing to hide argument" is somewhat fallacious, on the flip side, I doubt many of those people would be stood on the parapet shouting "it's ok government, I fully understand why my family was blown up when you could have prevented it by having access to intelligence that would have prevented it. I'd rather see my kids limbs strewn across the street than agree to that!".......
Choices, choices, eh?
18 February 2016, 01:10 PM
#40
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, Jack, I don't, it just so happens that Apple are in this case. I don't agree with Google who are backing them.
It just smacks of sour grapes after the NSA scandal was broken.
It's a tricky situation, to be sure, but this case, as it stands, does not carry any risk. Apple have not denied it can be done, the risk is already there.
If a subsequent request came out that would require a solution that affected everyone, well that is quite different.
18 February 2016, 01:16 PM
#42
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
18 February 2016, 01:20 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really think that iof someone was had the skill and determination they couldn't get in?
Apple arn't saying it cant be done, they are saying they wont. If apple can do it, other people can too. Give it a year and the hack will be out there anyway. How do you think security flaws are found?
Apple arn't saying it cant be done, they are saying they wont. If apple can do it, other people can too. Give it a year and the hack will be out there anyway. How do you think security flaws are found?
18 February 2016, 01:31 PM
#44
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
18 February 2016, 01:42 PM
#45
But, it won't screw up security for anyone else. The solution can be applied to that single phone. Apple have not denied it can be done, they are denying a US warrant, which is as worrying a precedent as the one you claim for everyone's security (which in fact, it isn't!).
Whilst I agree that the "nothing to hide argument" is somewhat fallacious, on the flip side, I doubt many of those people would be stood on the parapet shouting "it's ok government, I fully understand why my family was blown up when you could have prevented it by having access to intelligence that would have prevented it. I'd rather see my kids limbs strewn across the street than agree to that!".......
Choices, choices, eh?
Whilst I agree that the "nothing to hide argument" is somewhat fallacious, on the flip side, I doubt many of those people would be stood on the parapet shouting "it's ok government, I fully understand why my family was blown up when you could have prevented it by having access to intelligence that would have prevented it. I'd rather see my kids limbs strewn across the street than agree to that!".......
Choices, choices, eh?
On that basis, the smart way forward as I see it would be for Apple to comply, but only on terms that would mean the phone and the special tool only ever come together in a neutral lab, and Apple are then allowed to destroy or wipe the phone before it leaves the lab again, once the Feds have got whatever data they want off it. It'll be interesting to see if that's eventually the way this plays out.
18 February 2016, 01:54 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
But, it won't screw up security for anyone else. The solution can be applied to that single phone. Apple have not denied it can be done, they are denying a US warrant, which is as worrying a precedent as the one you claim for everyone's security (which in fact, it isn't!).
Whilst I agree that the "nothing to hide argument" is somewhat fallacious, on the flip side, I doubt many of those people would be stood on the parapet shouting "it's ok government, I fully understand why my family was blown up when you could have prevented it by having access to intelligence that would have prevented it. I'd rather see my kids limbs strewn across the street than agree to that!".......
Choices, choices, eh?
Whilst I agree that the "nothing to hide argument" is somewhat fallacious, on the flip side, I doubt many of those people would be stood on the parapet shouting "it's ok government, I fully understand why my family was blown up when you could have prevented it by having access to intelligence that would have prevented it. I'd rather see my kids limbs strewn across the street than agree to that!".......
Choices, choices, eh?
18 February 2016, 03:17 PM
#47
Completely agree with Tim Cook and a large majority agree in his/apple stance
http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/why...he-government/
well apart from Donald trump but then he's an idiot.
I think the only compromise is if apple made the changes (if they can) and brute forced the passcode hack themselves. if it worked then all good, if it didn't then nothing lost and everyone who worked on the hack would have to be killed to ensure no-one knew the method
http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/17/why...he-government/
well apart from Donald trump but then he's an idiot.
I think the only compromise is if apple made the changes (if they can) and brute forced the passcode hack themselves. if it worked then all good, if it didn't then nothing lost and everyone who worked on the hack would have to be killed to ensure no-one knew the method
18 February 2016, 05:04 PM
#50
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
That depends on what you consider hacked? If you mean hacked it to disable the wait time between passcode attempts and disable the deletion of all data after 10 attempts then I totally believe that nobody has done it. If you mean entered #30102 on the keypad and you get some undocumented options then that's quite likely.
18 February 2016, 07:20 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35601035
Explains it a bit better. The FBI are not asking Apple to compromise iOS security, it only applies to this phone. It even says Apple can destroy the one thing they need once it has been given to the FBI.
So Apple already have the tech to do it, it's a bit disingenuous of them to take the stance they. This is not opening up a back door to any other device.
Explains it a bit better. The FBI are not asking Apple to compromise iOS security, it only applies to this phone. It even says Apple can destroy the one thing they need once it has been given to the FBI.
So Apple already have the tech to do it, it's a bit disingenuous of them to take the stance they. This is not opening up a back door to any other device.
if a back door exists - Apple can craft a key
obviously it is a tricky situation - my inclination is always to personal privacy
but on the flip side this was a person who went on a shooting spree - not someone who the authorities simply don't like the "cut of their Jib"
and if Apple (or any tech company) have the ability to limit the tool to this phone - i.e. not give it to the authorities - simply hand back a unlocked phone
then it does look a little like "grandstanding"
18 February 2016, 09:02 PM
#53
yes this was my point, either it simply can't be done - or Apple have the knowledge to develop a tool, because one would hope the know how the software has been designed, so whether the "tool" actually exist is a moot point imo
if a back door exists - Apple can craft a key
obviously it is a tricky situation - my inclination is always to personal privacy
but on the flip side this was a person who went on a shooting spree - not someone who the authorities simply don't like the "cut of their Jib"
and if Apple (or any tech company) have the ability to limit the tool to this phone - i.e. not give it to the authorities - simply hand back a unlocked phone
then it does look a little like "grandstanding"
if a back door exists - Apple can craft a key
obviously it is a tricky situation - my inclination is always to personal privacy
but on the flip side this was a person who went on a shooting spree - not someone who the authorities simply don't like the "cut of their Jib"
and if Apple (or any tech company) have the ability to limit the tool to this phone - i.e. not give it to the authorities - simply hand back a unlocked phone
then it does look a little like "grandstanding"
18 February 2016, 09:49 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
But that's not what I got from Geezer's link - it read like the authorities would allow apple to do the unlocking, they just want the phone data
They would be daft to ask for the tool
18 February 2016, 10:48 PM
#55
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that really is the case, then Apple are essentially trying to resist a warrant, for whatever reason, and that is not good. No company is above the law, no matter what their stance is.
If it's not the case, the things are indeed a bit more complex. Still not sure whether that justifies their stance, considering what is concerned. It's not like it's some burglar, is it?
18 February 2016, 11:32 PM
#56
Yup, hadn't seen the bit about the FBI being happy for the whole process to actually be done at Apple HQ. For some reason all the other news pieces (much of the tech press included) left that out.
In that case, I'd agree that Apple are mostly just posteuring, which they're completely entitled to do, of course. It makes them look like heroes for personal liberty, and in the end they know they'll have to bend over for the Feds anyway, once people are threatened with jail time or something along those lines.
In that case, I'd agree that Apple are mostly just posteuring, which they're completely entitled to do, of course. It makes them look like heroes for personal liberty, and in the end they know they'll have to bend over for the Feds anyway, once people are threatened with jail time or something along those lines.
19 February 2016, 10:27 AM
#57
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Interesting read.
Google Wants You to Think It’s Supporting Apple in Its Fight Against the FBI. It Isn’t.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...over_data.html
Google Wants You to Think It’s Supporting Apple in Its Fight Against the FBI. It Isn’t.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...over_data.html
19 February 2016, 11:49 AM
#58
Scooby Regular
When a company like apple (just for example in this case but applies to any of the biggies) can throw millions at someone and not even blink about it then police/fbi etc have no chance.
Security services are a tad different because some people are that dedicated to their country they will take a much much lower pay out.
19 February 2016, 12:40 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think the FBI can afford to buy someone for their skills no mater how much they ask for?
When a company like apple (just for example in this case but applies to any of the biggies) can throw millions at someone and not even blink about it then police/fbi etc have no chance.
Security services are a tad different because some people are that dedicated to their country they will take a much much lower pay out.
When a company like apple (just for example in this case but applies to any of the biggies) can throw millions at someone and not even blink about it then police/fbi etc have no chance.
Security services are a tad different because some people are that dedicated to their country they will take a much much lower pay out.