iPhone code cracked

There was never any such issue in this case to begin with. Nothing involving what Apple can or can't do with future products was at issue. It was about helping the FBI get into one existing phone.

There are. Unfortunately now we don't know where that line is. But we likely will because I expect other law enforcement, somewhere, will bring a similar case.

Samsung would probably have helped. And it's the job of courts to sort out those issues.

I see, so you have a problem with legitimate court ordered search warrants to access terrorist's phones? Nice.

Reply to
trader_4
Loading thread data ...

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?

Reply to
DerbyDad03

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.

Reply to
trader_4

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

Reply to
Shade Tree Guy

They also found evidence of successful log ins to Hillary's toilet server.

Reply to
taxed and spent

Yes! All we should have heard is, "the FBI was able to read information from the phone" and that is all. And some junior high kid could have been $20 richer for having cracked it for them.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

Who they going to prosecute? The dead terrorist? What they need to know is what else may be planned and who is involved. I personally don't care about chain of custody if they pull a bomb out or the garage down the street from my house.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

Once it hit the 11 o'clock news they both lost.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

I wouldn't be surprised that the FBI paid actually paid $50K, $100K+ for it. I'd certainly have demanded payment.

Reply to
trader_4

Just looking for clarification:

You said "Apple has co "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.

Reply to
DerbyDad03

an as yet unknown accomplice. perhaps.

Reply to
taxed and spent

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.

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.

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

"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

  1. (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.

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.

Reply to
trader_4

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.)"

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:

formatting link
e.jpg

Reply to
DerbyDad03

I've discussed this with you before.

Many other people agree that this case is NOT just about this particular phone.

This case IS all about setting a legal precident.

You refuse to acknowledge that fact.

So YOU are ok with helping the KGB? (if you read what I wrote)

Reply to
makolber

Given that the phone in question was issued by the county, and used for work by the shooter, who had (and very completely destroyed) a personal phone as well, it is _highly_ likely that they got nothing from it.

Reply to
Scott Lurndal

How am I helping the KGB? The KGB is a party here? Does the KGB have a search warrant from an American court allowing the search? Good grief. And what precedent exactly are we setting? Apple has already assisted the govt with unlocking cell phones in 70 other cases. It's just that in this most heinous of cases, that suddenly Tim Cook for some reason got the urge to not cooperate. Hope he and you are happy. Instead of Apple doing it quietly, now the phone was unlocked by persons unknown, could be a teenage hacker who's next move is to post the solution on the internet. Or it could be posted by one of 100 others who may also be trying to crack it, just they are a little further behind. So, are you happy now? Apple happy? Are Apples customers better off now instead of Apple doing it quietly?

Reply to
trader_4

Who cares. No one can know what they will or won't find. It's up to law enforcement to pursue every possible avenue. I guess you'd prefer the lib approach, like Belgium, ie the Keystone Cops who can't intercept attacks even when they have 4 months, lots of people involved, one directly involved in custody for 4 days before Brussels got blown up. That's what the lib approach will do for you. Even now that idiot Obama said over the weekend that we need to take in more muslim refugees so they can help us prevent terrorism. Go figure. That's a new low, even for him.

Reply to
trader_4

Exactly. They will design the *hardware* so that NO SOFTWARE UPDATE can alter these behaviors. When "ordered" to comply, they will say, "OK, give us the phone, we are going to erase the CIRCUITRY and lay down NEW CIRCUITRY; in the process, effectively DESTROYING the phone and its contents But, hey, if that's what you want...."

Yes. And, if laws are enacted to prevent them from making a secure device, can they simply become a FOREIGN CORPORATION? Can they simply refuse to offer their products for sale in the US? "Dear iPhone customer, As of your $600 telephone will no longer be supported. Nor will your government allow you to purchase a new product from us. Oh, and, by the way, your congresscritter's phone number and email address appear on the screen below this message..."

Amusing considering how the same government went to bat *for* Apple to prevent it from caving to similar demands of the *Chinese* gummit!

It's not a question of *asking* but, rather, of FORCING assistance. "Forced speech". "Mr Cronkite, we want to exploit YOUR GOOD NAME AND REPUTATION for our benefit. This court order insists that you tell everyone to vote Republican in the upcoming election on each of your newscasts between now and the election."

The feds blew this. They insisted Apple could develop this technology and "magically" contain it from getting out into the wild. Now, amusingly, they find themselves in exactly the same position: can they be sure their employees ( snowden) and the employees of whatever firm assisted in the operation will continue to keep secret (from big, bad apple) the means by which they gained access to the phone's contents?

When prosecuters from those other jurisdictions seeking to crack iPhones for ongoing CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS (no dead terrorists but, rather, murderers, rapists, drug dealers, tax evaders, pedophiles, etc.) start asking for

*their* phones to be unlocked, will the feds willingly "share their secret"?

When the defense attorneys for each of those defendants challenge the integrity and validity of any such evidence obtained (in an OPEN, *US* court, not a "secret court" -- guantanamo), will the feds be able to say, "Trust us, that's what was in the phone. We're not going to tell you how we know -- cuz Apple might find out! Madame Zelda has never been wrong when it comes to her tea leave readings..."?

Do we suddenly start shipping everyone with a cracked iPhone off to gitmo just so we can suspend the rule of law?

So, its a foregone conclusion that Apple *will* (!) know what exploit was discovered. For the feds to say "we're not going to tell you" can then be parlayed into "The feds WANT your iPhone to be hackable! Write your congressman demanding your right to privacy!" Of course, pointing to J Flaming Edgar, McCarthy, Nixon, Snowden, etc. to further stoke the fears of government abuses -- should play right into the hands of those "big government" foes...

And, given their public stance, Apple will probably go out of their way to ensure that exploit is fixed -- in software and/or hardware (when you are making hundreds of millions of you can easily slip a change into production without having to recall every unit in the field).

If they feel their reputation as been sullied, they can "simply" offer $50,000 to the first person (or firm) that can demonstrate a NEW hack of their next product -- and publicize how long the prize goes unclaimed ("Gee, I guess no pimply faced teenagers interested in a $50K prize? Maybe we should up the ante to $100K? $250K?? I.e., add a few pennies to every iPhone sale to pay for a POTENTIAL crack??")

[Rivest et al. did this when they introduced their breakthrough technology in the late 70's But, they were "mere mortals" without the deep pockets of the largest corporation on the planet!]

And, NONE OF THIS does anything to anticipate the next attack -- unless they stumble upon PHYSICAL POSSESSION of another iPhone before such an attack (which, as seems to be the case in Belgium, could just ACCELERATE the timetable for it). "Gee, you've got all these tools to pry into our secrets (all the while getting REALLY UPSET when YOURS are leaked) yet you STILL can't keep us safe?" Or, when/if it gets into the hands of hackers and Apple publicizes the fact that this is "probably" a result of the Feds very public effort of prying into their technology? Or, the firm that assisted in the effort being hacked (e.g., by a NATION STATE intent on gaining access to that technology)?

And, does absolutely nothing to protect against someone using an encryption technology that Apple doesn't control! That the phone doesn't *preserve*! etc. Just because the feds make obvious blunders: "Reset the cloud password for this phone! (Ooops!)" "OK, boys, lets UNPLUG this computer and pack it up to bring down to the digital forensics lab for analysis..." etc. doesn't mean folks who are intent on doing wrongs (in a VERY BIG WAY) will be similarly inept.

Finally, it still leaves the issue of precedent unresolved. They *may* have some stale (?) information (clues to an attack in Belgium?) from two lone wolves but have made their work going forward all the more difficult (while raising expectations as to what they *will* be able to do!)

Yes, the feds lost big time!

Reply to
Don Y

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! :>

Reply to
Don Y

I think they also discovered some (old) PowerBall numbers!

Reply to
Don Y

HomeOwnersHub website 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.