iPhone code cracked

Page 3 of 3  
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 10:36:24 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:

My favorite paragraph:
"The withdrawal of the court process also takes away Apple's ability to legally request details on the method the FBI used in this case. Apple attorneys said last week that they hoped the government would share that information with them if it proved successful."
In other words, "We didn't help you this time, so please help us make it even more difficult for you next time."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 8:04:03 AM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:

The FBI may choose to share their new tool with other law enforcement too. Or whoever helped them may decide to put it out on the web. Or another hacker may decide that since it's clearly possible, they want to take up the challenge. How Apple thinks that's better than Apple just quietly doing it, IDK.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

I *think* you're agreeing with me, but I'm not sure. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 8:31:14 AM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:

Yes, I'm basically agreeing with you, that Apple isn't going to know how the FBI finally got in. Except I don't see how Apple would ever be able to legally "request" and get anything from the FBI if it had gone the other way. If Apple had just done what the FBI asked, what the court ordered, then Apple would automatically know what they did. Even without knowing what they did, Apple already knows how they would have approached it, how they would have done it, and can use that knowledge to harden any future products. Apple may find out what this method was, depending on who helped the FBI.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 8:43:33 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

OK, now that we're on the same page, I'm going to disagree with *you*, somewhat.
You said: "How Apple thinks that's better than Apple just quietly doing it, IDK"
I'm sure you realize that there is no way on God's green earth that Apple could have done it "quietly". It would have gotten out. There is no way that it wouldn't have been leaked that Apple help the govt access personal information on one of their phones.
That would have started a crap storm from customers and the media alike.
The only way around that - and it's not a great solution - would have been for them to publicly announce that "for the safety of humankind, we are going to help the FBI find every one of the bastards that were involved in this horrendous act".
It still wouldn't have been pretty, but it would have been better than having it leaked that they did it "quietly".
Apple was - and still is - between a brick (pun intended) and a hard place.
Help the FBI and lose all credibility when it comes to saying that they care about protecting their customer's data or (as has now happened) have the world find out that their phones aren't quite as secure as they led us all to believe.
The next question is this: Did someone within Apple know about the vulnerability that was exploited by the person who helped the FBI? If so, how high up did that knowledge go?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 9:44:15 AM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:

Apple has cooperated with numerous law enforcement many times before. I think the FBI said in it's filing that they had helped the FBI dozens of times before. I never had heard stories about any of those, prior to this winding up in court. Maybe something was out there, but if it was, it was minimal, not front page news worldwide.

I don't see that at all. Apple cooperating with a legitimate search warrant in a high profile terrorist case doesn't equate with not caring about protecting their other customers, who are legal, not criminals, etc. You'd have to be a fool to think that Apple can't get around almost anything they put into their phones in one way or another. Everyone knows that. So, I don't see the problem with Apple saying sure, we recognize the legitimate need of law enforcement, pursuant to a search warrant, to get into locked products and we will help them. THAT in fact has been there policy, until apparently Tim Cook decided to make a big spectacle and grandstand.

Apple won't be able to know, because as you pointed out, the FBI isn't going to tell them who helped them, how it was done, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:55:57 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

Just looking for clarification:
You said "Apple has cooperated with numerous law enforcement many times before."
and then you said:
"I think the FBI said in it's filing..."
and
"I never had heard stories about any of those..."
So are you saying that Apple *has* helped or that you *think* Apple has helped?
(I don't know the answer, so I'm just asking)

You don't see it that way, but don't you think that many others on various sides of the issue will say things like "I can't trust Apple any more" or "Apple is now part of the Big Brother family", etc. How that might impact their image is unknown, but they probably didn't want to take that chance.

I ain't no fool. ;-)

Again, is that actually the case? I can't tell from the wording of your first paragraph. (I'm not being lazy - or maybe I am - but I don't have the time to research that right now, so I'm trusting that you'll let me know that Apple has actually unlocked phones in the spirit of justice.
If they've done it in the past, why are they pushing back so hard now?

I'm guessing that they already know. As you said, they know how to get around anything they've put into their phones, so they must know all of the hacks. I'm sure the specifics of this case will get out, maybe only at the highest levels and behind closed doors, but nothing stays hidden any more.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:43:21 AM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:

I'm saying that the govt said in it's court filing that Apple has cooperated with them in the past, I think it was dozens of times. And that Apple itself has said that it has cooperated with law enforcement many times to get data out of iPhones. And that prior to this spat, none of that got much attention, if any, in the media. It's the first I ever heard about it. Sounds like you didn'tsee it reported in the media prior to this either.

ke.




n

place.

ey care

the

s all

s

.

So, instead, everyone found out that Apple had been quietly cooperating in the past. And now everyone just found out that the very thing that Apple said would happen, ie that all the iPhones in the world would be compromised, has happened, assuming you believed Apple to begin with. Tim Cook said that if Apple did anything with that one phone and kept whatever they did to themselves, it would forever compromise all the iPhones out there, their customers, etc. So, instead, far worse has happened. The phone has been unlocked and instead of it happening in a secure Apple lab, we have no idea where it happened, who did it, etc. Could be a hacker in Romania that did it. And could be others coming who took up the challenge, are not far behind, not white knights too. Seems far preferable for everyone if Apple had just cooperated quietly like they had in the past.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-apple-has-unlocked-iphones-before/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/apple-justice-department/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for -the-feds-70-times-before.html
"But in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it co uld extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 20 08. (Apple doesn't dispute this figure.)"
Those are what came up quickly with Google. That's from a similar case in NY, so I guess that's where the govt made the claim, cited the numbers, not specifically in the SB filing.

That's what inquiring minds would like to know. What Cook claims is that because this instance requires them to make some modifications to the software, that it will have implications that those 70 other assistances didn't. If the FBI was to get the new code, there would be merit to that argument. But since the govt offered to let Apple remain in control of it, IMO it's BS.

so,



Typically developers don't know all the possible ways of getting around what they create. That's why MSFT for example has to keep issuing security updates almost every week. So, Apple won't know for sure exactly how it was done, unless someone tells them. OMG, all those Apple customers who are so worried about their security better throw the phones away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 12:28:27 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

like.

ve

d,

re

han

d place.

they care

e the

us all

ng

ous

or

ct

ce.

or-the-feds-70-times-before.html

could extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in th at case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn't dispute this figure.)"


If so,



Thanks for doing my homework for me. :-)
I was getting my oil changed at a place with a real slow internet connection...oh wait...now I sound like Painted Cow.
Never mind...I meant my iPad had just been hacked by this guy and I couldn't get to Google:
http://images.halloweencostumes.com/products/3331/1-1/sexy-fbi-agent-costum e.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:43:59 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster

I feel the same way and it was working until the Israeli company leaked the fact that they had cracked the phone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Wouldn't the judge have to have been in on it if it was a charade? That's my one thought why the exercise was real rather than a show.
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yeahbut. The guys here know what they're talking about on these 'puter things. I can find the on-off switch on a good day.
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/29/2016 5:26 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

Sadly, that is *not* the case, in this discussion. From the responses I've seen, folks don't know: - the difference between a "computer" and "an appliance" (phone) - what's involved involved in the design of a "complex system" - "programming" - software engineering - cryptography (in theory and in practice) - memory technology - power management - volume manufacturing - local vs. remote exploits - how to research and *read* what's been published on the subject (instead of idly speculating on what's involved)
The comments are naive and ignorant. It's like a plumber feeling qualified to discuss/explain heart surgery "cuz they both involve fluids and ways of transporting it". (A better example might be a CARPENTER undertaking the same task!)
Would you think doubling the range of a vehicle was as simple a matter as "doubling the size of the gas tank"? - Does the tank need to be stronger built to contain more fluid? - Do the mounts for it need to be strengthened to support the added weight? - Does a larger SPACE need to be found to accommodate it in the vehicle? - Does fuel economy suffer because of the added load? - Are there any other safety concerns or regulatory issues? (minor details? But, important when you find yourself out of gas miles short of your destination! :> )

Congratulations! That appears to be better than most of the commentators, here! :>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 3:26:16 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

Why don't you explain that to us. That should be very interesting.

Interesting coming from the fool that posted this:
"Apple was asked to WRITE SOFTWARE, cryptographically *sign* that software and then introduce it to the phone (via the normal update mechanism). The feds spelled out EXACTLY what the differences between that software and the "normal" software would be. I.e., it didn't include anything that would make a casual user of an "updated" phone realize that it had been hacked. The changes would only be noticed by a person wanting to circumvent the protections on the phone: "
All the above is pure and total BS. What the court order directed Apple to do was just two things:
1 - Turn off the 10 strike erase
2 - Provide an electronic means to enter passcodes, eg USB, wifi, etc.
How that was done, was entirely up to Apple.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 7:36:24 PM UTC-7, Dean Hoffman wrote:

So far, the FBI has only extracted some old photos of J Edgar Hoover in drag and the location of Jimmy Hoffa's body from it
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They also found evidence of successful log ins to Hillary's toilet server.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/29/2016 8:06 AM, Shade Tree Guy wrote:

I think they also discovered some (old) PowerBall numbers!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.