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."
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.
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.
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*,
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
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?
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.
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
and then you said:
"I think the FBI said in it's filing..."
"I never had heard stories about any of those..."
So are you saying that Apple *has* helped or that you *think* Apple
(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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 12:28:27 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
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:
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"
- 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,
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.
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.