On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 7:37:57 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
Completely wrong. Read the actual court order. It says nothing
at all about that. It simply asked Apple to:
1 - Disable the 10 strike erase feature
2 - Give them a means to electronically present passcodes via, USB, wifi,
BS. Read the court order.
BS. Read the court order.
Sure, that's why they went to court, right?
The remaining step is for whoever helped the FBI or some other hacker
to put the method on the web. See how Apple likes that.
It's not over. It's very likely another police agency with soon
resume, where this left off. This wasn't the only iphone.
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.
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.
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:51:11 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
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
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 11:15:40 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
That's not true. The FBI didn't specify how they wanted Apple to
do what needed to be done. There was no requirement that it be "pushable"
or that the FBI even have any direct access to what Apple created.
The FBI even offered to let Apple have possession of the phone, modify
it, then let the FBI access this one phone remotely.
I'd say Apple lost the battle. It's clear now that an outside third
party, which could be anyone from someone at a security firm to a
hacker, provided the FBI with a way into Apple's phone products which Apple
claims are so super secure. What's better? Apple having cooperated
quietly? Or Apple having raised a big stink and now everyone knows
that at least some unknown person out there knows how to crack their
phones? The only remaining step if for the technique to be made public
on the web, finishing the humiliation of Apple.
They shouldn't have even said *that*! It now tells bad guys that their phone
is a potential "information leak"!
Doubtful this was a "simple" hack. I'd imagine a fair bit of special hardware
and tuned expertise was involved. I.e., they had the phone *apart* to get at
what they wanted.
Designing with security in mind is a very different sort of activity from
"just throwing something together that does X". Ever notice how many
"security updates" you've installed on your PC? And, presumably, MS had
at least *some* interest in making a secure product!
In the late 70's, I worked in an industry that saw large losses to
counterfeited products. We would "challenge" our (legitimate) competitors
to crack our protection schemes -- knowing that they had as much at stake
protecting their products as we did, ours. We would remove part numbers
from components (obscuring their nature), remove "chips" from their
packages, xray items to see what's under the plastic, embed bits of
metal and wire to confound xray attempts, design "custom" chips that
implemented key functionalities, etc.
I.e., a well funded competitor would spend a lot of money to TRY to
copy what we'd done -- let alone try to *change* it in the process.
Not the sort of thing someone is going to do in their garage...
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-4, Tekkie® wrote:
Potentially even worse, so does some unknown third party. It may be
the Israeli security firm that helped them, but that is speculation at
this point. Also, we don't know how many hackers took up the challenge
and may still be working on it too.
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.