Slashdot Mirror


iPhone 3Gs Encryption Cracked In Two Minutes

An anonymous reader writes "In a Wired news article, iPhone Forensics expert Jonathan Zdziarski explains how the much-touted hardware encryption of the iPhone 3Gs is but a farce, and demonstrates how both the passcode and backup encryption can be bypassed in about two minutes. Zdziarski also goes on to say that all data on the iPhone — including deleted data — is automatically decrypted by the iPhone when it's copied, allowing hackers and law enforcement agencies alike access the device's raw disk as if no encryption were present. A second demonstration features the recovery of the iPhone's entire disk while the device is still passcode-locked. According to a similar article in Ars Technica, Zdziarski describes the iPhone's hardware encryption by saying it's 'like putting privacy glass on half your shower door.' With the iPhone being sold into 20% of Fortune-100s and into the military, just how worried should we be with such shoddy security?"

179 comments

  1. figures... by omegakidd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    who would trust phones nowadays anyways?

    1. Re:figures... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apple fanbois?

    2. Re:figures... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah but you have to add that to the "who would trusts apple nowadays" effect when it comes to this particular model.

      there's nothing that childish about wanting a shiny new iphone - if you like shiny things then why not; to kid yourself into thinking it works for any serious application is where the cool aid comes in.

      cryptography and apple are two words i wouldn't expect to see in one sentence- portable jukeboxes and photoshop machines - yes - cryptography no.

  2. On The Bright Side... by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 3, Funny

    No government will have to strong-arm Apple to give it a back door into the iPhone operating system. ;-)

    I know security can be a minefield but for Apple to leave a hole this big is pretty inexcusable.

    1. Re:On The Bright Side... by MooseMuffin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Lets not leave out the crappy job that the military and these enterprises did with their security audits.

    2. Re:On The Bright Side... by wealthychef · · Score: 4, Informative

      Laugh, but this actually is the new feature as designed. This encryption was added to make it possible to remotely wipe an iPhone in seconds. (Delete the encryption key that is on the phone, no more reading the data off of it.) Apparently the intent was not to protect the data on the phone from a real attacker, I don't think anyone at Apple that worked on this would expect that to be the case with the encryption key on the device. (stolen from an AC because it's interesting)

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    3. Re:On The Bright Side... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apparently the intent was not to protect the data on the phone from a real attacker, I don't think anyone at Apple that worked on this would expect that to be the case with the encryption key on the device.

      Ahhh, but that certainly hasn't stopped Apple touting it as a feature of the phone and a selling point into the enterprise, and fanboy gloating...

    4. Re:On The Bright Side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know security can be a minefield but for Apple to leave a hole this big is pretty inexcusable.

      They're modeling their security off of goatse!

    5. Re:On The Bright Side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cut it out mate, you'll make him spill his kool aid!

    6. Re:On The Bright Side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct! The encryption on the iPhone makes the remote wipe faster, and that is all. In fact, that is all it was ever meant to do. The protocols to access the device's contents over USB are unauthenticated and unencrypted. Basically, any computer can ask for data and get it if it asks the right way.

      This is like encrypting your hard drive with PGP full disk encryption, then moaning that people can access your data if you share the entire drive via HTTP. Of course they can access your data! It's being shared via a protocol with no authentication or encryption!

    7. Re:On The Bright Side... by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      Too bad you keep posting as anonymous coward -- most people will never see your comments.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    8. Re:On The Bright Side... by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, where does apple sell encryption protection of the hard drive as a feature in the iPhone? If they do, I would certainly agree they screwed the pooch. If not, you must eat crow. LOL

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
  3. No worry here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Steve Jobs cast no shadows, and his followers commit no crimes. There is nothing to worry about here.

  4. I put privacy glass . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I put privacy glass on the bottom half of the shower door so I don't have to look at the people watching me, which seems to be the same kind of privacy I can expect on my iPhone 3G.

    1. Re:I put privacy glass . . . by frosty_tsm · · Score: 5, Funny

      I put privacy glass on the top half of the shower door so I don't have to look at the people watching me, which seems to be the same kind of privacy I can expect on my iPhone 3G.

      Fixed it for you.

    2. Re:I put privacy glass . . . by spiffmastercow · · Score: 0

      Wow.. That's the first time I've ever seen that meme applied to the original meaning of the phrase!

    3. Re:I put privacy glass . . . by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      "Which half of her swimsuit did she wear?"
      "The left half."

      I think that was from Bewitched, regarding Samantha's twin sister's visit to a public beach.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:I put privacy glass . . . by solanum · · Score: 1

      What are you taking about, don't you shower standing on your head like the rest of us?

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
    5. Re:I put privacy glass . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us use our dicks to see, you insensitive clod!

  5. But... by thePsychologist · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is a feature. Cracking is yet another thing about the iPhone that Just Works. I believe Steve Jobs would be proud.

    --
    "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    1. Re:But... by mdwh2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed, it doesn't matter that other phones have been cracked - Apple were the first ones to make it work Out Of The Box.

      It's all about the implementation. With the iPhone 3gS, your credit card details are integrated perfectly with crackers, thieves, and Steve Jobs.

    2. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Laugh, but this actually is the new feature as designed.

      This encryption was added to make it possible to remotely wipe an iPhone in seconds. (Delete the encryption key that is on the phone, no more reading the data off of it.)

      Clearly the intent was not to protect the data on the phone from a real attacker, I don't think anyone at Apple that worked on this would expect that to be the case with the encryption key on the device.

    3. Re:But... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that he's not attacking the encryption, he's attacking how it's used? Sounds like... pretty bog-standard procedure, really. :)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    4. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      True, but the article says the data can be read off the device without entering the PIN. That makes the entire concept of remote wipe worthless. All you have to do is pop out the sim as soon as you find a lost iPhone. If the owner hasn't discovered that the phone is missing, the remote wipe will not occur because the phone can't talk to the tower. At that point, if you can read the data straight off the phone without keying in the PIN, you might as well just carve all your passwords, coworkers' contact info, and confidential emails on the back of the phone along with your kids' names, schools, class schedules, and lists of their greatest fears.

      This may be as designed, but only if it was designed by somebody who knows fuck all about security. The first time somebody uses this to swipe confidential information off an Apple employee's iPhone, there's gonna be a reckoning. Who the hell builds a device that can decrypt its contents without using the PIN number to unlock it? That's like building a bicycle lock that you can unlock by tugging on it.

      iPhone Team FAIL.

  6. Re:Apple blows. by SomeJoel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am confused. Does it suck, or does it blow? These are opposites, are they not?

    --
    <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
  7. So what.... by TechnoChatter69420 · · Score: 1

    The king is dead, all hail the king. Stevey thinks we don't know any better, but I think we've already seen the card that he keeps up his sleeve.....

  8. The same F500 and military that use Windows? by gig · · Score: 5, Informative

    Until the Fortune 500 and the military stop using Microsoft products, I won't lose a blink of sleep over them using Apple products. This guy had to have physical access to the iPhone to crack it, and even then the iPhone did not start sending its data out over the Internet along with a virus payload that formed a massive botnet that crippled Internet bandwidth.

    My understanding is that the encryption in the 3GS is not meant to prevent a user with physical access to the device from accessing the data. It's to make Remote Wipe instant instead of taking 1 hour per gigabyte because the Remote Wipe only has to destroy the decryption keys, not every bit of data on the disk. When you Remote Wipe an iPhone 3G it takes 1 hour per gigabyte to destroy the data. With a 3GS, it takes a few seconds.

    In this case, the hacker not only had the iPhone in his physical possession, but it was not Remote Wiped, so he also had the keys in his possession. How is it at all surprising that he was able to get in?

    1. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by nxtw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In this case, the hacker not only had the iPhone in his physical possession, but it was not Remote Wiped, so he also had the keys in his possession. How is it at all surprising that he was able to get in?

      Because if that same hacker had a Blackberry in his possession with encryption enabled, he would not be able to get in.

    2. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ok...so you are telling me that it is trivial and you CAN do this with a BlackBerry too?...

    3. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Until the Fortune 500 and the military stop using Microsoft products, I won't lose a blink of sleep over them using Apple products. This guy had to have physical access to the iPhone to crack it, and even then the iPhone did not start sending its data out over the Internet along with a virus payload that formed a massive botnet that crippled Internet bandwidth."

      haha. All of you anti-Apple weenies can eat it. Because Gates is gone and Ballmer is running a low profile, your next target naturally has to be Jobs.

    4. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My understanding is that the encryption in the 3GS is not meant to prevent a user with physical access to the device from accessing the data. It's to make Remote Wipe instant instead of taking 1 hour per gigabyte because the Remote Wipe only has to destroy the decryption keys, not every bit of data on the disk. When you Remote Wipe an iPhone 3G it takes 1 hour per gigabyte to destroy the data. With a 3GS, it takes a few seconds.

      Isn't the point of remote wipe to prevent unauthorized access to the data on the physical device? So, it doesn't matter how long it takes to do the remote wipe if the keys can be broken in 2 minutes since that leaves only a small window of time to do the wipe. Especially if the attacker can copy the entire contents of the iPhone to a remote storage device and do it offline.

      Disk encryption, especially mobile and laptop, should be designed specifically to prevent data retrieval when physical possession is obtained by an attacker.

    5. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by thedak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      .. I won't lose a blink of sleep over them using Apple products. This guy had to have physical access to the iPhone to crack it, and even then the iPhone did not start sending its data out over the Internet along with a virus payload that formed a massive botnet that crippled Internet bandwidth.

      That is because they are completely different cases with completely different mechanisms to prevent them. You're talking about the ability to load a spambot or something on a mobile device. The encryption is there to ensure your address book is safe, your calendar is safe, any photos and other data are safe. Not to ensure the device does not run arbitrary code. The problem with the data encryption being crackable within an arbitrary length of time is a large issue, as it is meant to be protection regardless of where the device lies, in hands or not.

      My understanding is that the encryption in the 3GS is not meant to prevent a user with physical access to the device from accessing the data

      That is exactly the purpose of encryption.

      enÂcrypt (Än-krÄpt) tr.v. enÂcryptÂed, enÂcryptÂing, enÂcrypts

      1. To put into code or cipher.
      2. Computer Science To alter (a file, for example) using a secret code so as to be unintelligible to unauthorized parties.
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/encryption

      So yes, it is a major issue, as it circumvents what the encryption is meant to accomplish.

    6. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My understanding is that the encryption in the 3GS is not meant to prevent a user with physical access to the device from accessing the data. It's to make Remote Wipe instant

      Perhaps I'm missing something here, but what's the point of doing a remote wipe of your iphone, if not to prevent someone that has physical access from accessing your data?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    7. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is that actually true? I'd like to see some evidence.

    8. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by Chatterton · · Score: 1

      Pffff nitpicking ;-)

    9. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There is no time window for remote wipe at all:

      1. Steal iPhone
      2. Turn off
      3. Remove SIM, disabling remote wipe
      4. Turn on and spend as long as you like (or 2 minutes) decrypting contents
      5. Steal data
      6. Profit

      (OT, but why don't my list numbers look like numbers?)

    10. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, let's state this more simply so that people can use it in other places as well:

      1. Security through obscurity is not security
      2. If security relies on an attacker not to be smart enough, it is not secure

    11. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      To prevent most thieves from getting access to your data? I'm not sure Apple has ever advertised this as high-grade protection. The only reference I can find on their site is to remote wiping. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place?

    12. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by Henk+Poley · · Score: 1

      It's more like 1 hour per 8GB, btw.

    13. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      He also had to jailbreak the phone to get into it.

      That's pretty much the same as using an exploit to gain super user access to a computer. We all know there's root kits and scripts which make this easy.

      Smarthones aren't all that secure, they typically all have some sort of boot loader which you can often use to read the contents of the flash.

    14. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Probably to mess up your phone if you don't buy directly from apple. I could definately see them wiping your jailbroken phone after connecting to iTunes.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    15. Re:The same F500 and military that use Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't that the key can be cracked in two minutes, it's that it takes two minutes to use an approved, unauthenticated protocol to access the data on the device.

  9. interesting by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, I just watched the linked demonstration and what I noticed was he only placed his "private data" on the phone after he removed the pincode. I'd be interested to see a demonstration of him pulling data off the phone that was present before he reset the pin, to demonstrate that resetting the pin didn't just revert it back to factory defaults and remove all previous data.

    That said, I'll take his word for it now, it's quite interesting in the least. I have to wonder if this is an intentional "feature".

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    1. Re:interesting by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd like to add that anyone that thinks a 4 digit pin was ever going to provide any sort of strong protection, particularly for "sensitive data", is an idiot.

      At the worst it'd take less than an hour to brute force it manually.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...unless you've got it set to delete all data on your phone after 10 incorrect attempts.

    3. Re:interesting by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      0000.

      That's a good PIN right. Or maybe 0212, my birthday? Nobody would ever guess that.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I have to wonder if this is an intentional "feature".

      Indeed. Most people really don't want real security. It would be a support nightmare for Apple because the common person is an idiot and will forget their password or whatever. Then all they want is their data back and they expect Apple to give it to them. If the device was really truly secure then their data would be permanently gone.

      Fortunately there are third party products that provide real security for people who really need it. Too bad it's not always well integrated into the system though. I am glad this market exists though because that's how I make my living.

    5. Re:interesting by SomeJoel · · Score: 0

      ...unless you've got it set to delete all data on your phone after 10 incorrect attempts.

      That would make sabotaging someone's phone pretty easy. Just pick it up, make ten wild ass guesses at a PIN, and rest assured their precious data is now gone.
      As an added bonus, if one of your wild ass guesses is right, you can look at the data before you trash it.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    6. Re:interesting by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

      ...unless you've got it set to delete all data on your phone after 10 incorrect attempts.

      Hi,

      Please stop injecting inconvenient facts into this debate.

      Thanks!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re:interesting by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      So that takes care of low tech brute force attempts but the fact remains that in cryptography a 4 digit secret is pretty damned worthless.

      Also, with that sort of security system I sure as hell hope you keep backups...

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    8. Re:interesting by PnjDbq · · Score: 5, Informative

      The iPhone starts injecting time delays into the login/wipe process, I believe after the first 5 incorrect attempts. First one minute, then 5 minutes, and I have never had the patience to watch much beyond that. You can still sabotage the phone, but it's not fast.

    9. Re:interesting by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Something tells me 0212 is going to do a lot better against an unknown attacker than the 19xx pins that are ever so common....

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    10. Re:interesting by John+Nowak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or just pick it up and throw it out the window.

    11. Re:interesting by Gnavpot · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...unless you've got it set to delete all data on your phone after 10 incorrect attempts.

      You are assuming that the attacker does not use his own software for extracting and decrypting the data?

      That assumption is usually one of the first and most obvious traps people fall into when they try to invent a new protection method.

      But perhaps the assumption will hold in this particular case. I don't know if it is possible to extract the encrypted data from an iPhone and decrypt them elsewhere.

    12. Re:interesting by RobVB · · Score: 1

      Which is why you should never leave your hardware unattended around friends.

      --
      I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    13. Re:interesting by Minupla · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's how my work Blackberry is configured - if I enter my PIN wrong too many times, it self wipes. All my data is gone. Until I either plug it in to my workstation at work, and it restores form the backup, or I call in and get a new activation pin assigned and do a wireless sync. It's a bit of a pain in the butt when it happens, but seems like a reasonable trade off. Of course the BB has a good keyboard, so i don't mistype often :)

      That being said, I do lust after an Iphone for personal use, but I would not at this point recommend we use them for corporate work, too much risk. My personal data is less valuable, as I don't carry around sensitive emails.

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    14. Re:interesting by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      You mean like the code you use on your luggage? Or the code you use at the ATM? Or the code for the alarm system in your home?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    15. Re:interesting by dotar · · Score: 1

      HAHA, sucker, I set mine to 9999 to hold those bastard hackers up as long as possible.

    16. Re:interesting by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Most people really don't want real security. It would be a support nightmare"

      It wouldn't.

      "the common person is an idiot and will forget their password or whatever. Then all they want is their data back and they expect Apple to give it to them. If the device was really truly secure then their data would be permanently gone."

      And that's exaclty why it wouldn't be a support nightmare:
      -Hello, I forgot my password.
      -Then you are f*ed. Next call!

      See? About five seconds and the incident is properly closed.

      It can be a marketing nightmare (and that's the whole point, of course) but certainly not a support nightmare.

      "Fortunately there are third party products that provide real security for people who really need it. Too bad it's not always well integrated into the system though."

      *That* is a support nightmare, not the previous case.

    17. Re:interesting by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Mine is sooooooo much better. The combination is...

      1...

      2...

      3...

      4.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    18. Re:interesting by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is a great application for MobileMe. If you forget your pin number, assuming you are connected through MobileMe, it would be just as simple to have a remote unlock/PIN reset command as it is to have a mobile wipe. No support nightmare required. "Log into your MobileMe account. Now click 'My iPhone.' Now click 'Forgot PIN'. Now enter a new PIN. No! Don't tell me what it is! Enter a different PIN. Write it down before you do. Now click the 'Change PIN' button. Wait for it." The phone buzzes. "Now type in that new PIN. Did it unlock? Good."

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:interesting by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Those aren't particularly secure either... you don't *need* the code to break into luggage (anyone who's come across airport security probably has experienced this). ATMs and Chip/Pin systems rely on nobody physically getting hold of your card and/or having the time to enter enough combinations to break into the system. Alarm systems, except the most expensive ones with direct connections to the local police, are mostly snake oil - shutting one up takes under a minute and most people don't react to alarms unless they're going off for a while.

    20. Re:interesting by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      It probably isn't that hard, but if the software stops you and you really want the data rip the thing apart and read it directly off the chips.

    21. Re:interesting by m_ilya · · Score: 1

      Doesn't SIM card lock after 3 tries with a wrong PIN code? How do you brute force this?

      --

      --
      Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)

    22. Re:interesting by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      With a mobile phone? I would imagine that that is mandatory. Unless you bolt it to a chain and clamp it to your arm or something as such, the chances of losing or misplacing a mobile device is high. That's why wiping sensitive data on it when compromised is an acceptable protection.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    23. Re:interesting by EverlastingPhelps · · Score: 1
      Cryptographically, it isn't a 4 digit key. It's an AES 256 key, which is significant. The lock on the device is a 4 digit pin with a wipe after 10 attempts, which makes the odds of brute forcing it ridiculously low. And it means that you are ridiculously uninformed on anything cryptographic.

      And iTunes backs it up every time it syncs. And will encrypt the backups as well. Which, if you are cryptographically inclined, are on an encrypted volume on your computer.

  10. No security is the unwritten rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this seems a little conspiritorial ...I have always had the feeling all mainstream mobile platforms are intentionally insecure.

    Anything having to do with voice communications is broken severly from a security perspective. Entire voice oriented protocol stacks such as SIP have piss poor security properties or get shit wrong enough that they can be easily be circumvented.

    I know that trust and key management are hard problems and very difficult to get right but mainstream mobile platforms have not even so much as tried to get it right. Maybe there just isn't any market value in it?

  11. security theatre by drDugan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    security theatre: (1) security countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to actually improve security, usually resulting from political absurdity, poor engineering, the need to present an image of security more than real security, or some combination of these factors. (2) The real mission of the Transportation Security Administration.

    Examples: airport screening, "No-Fly" lists, random searches on subway systems, 1950's "duck and cover" drills in U.S. public schools

  12. Security Professionals by Yeorwned · · Score: 1, Informative

    Apple with poor security? No way! Oh wait, their operating system does have almost 4 times the number of critical vulnerabilities that M$ XP has, every single year since it's release. Impressive record.

    1. Re:Security Professionals by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      And yet Apple STILL doesn't have remote exploits that infect your machine WHILE CONNECTING TO THE PATCH SERVER. *cough* Not all vulnerabilities are created equal. But sarcasm aside... I wonder, tinfoil hat on and all, if this is "desired" behavior? I wouldn't put it past the government to _want_ this sort of ability....

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  13. Re:Apple blows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, when one has diarrhea, one 'blows' chunks out of their ass. This 'sucks' when it happens. So I guess we can say Apple is 'shit'.

  14. Wow, this guy is hard core... by risk+one · · Score: 5, Funny

    He even encrypted his last name.

    1. Re:Wow, this guy is hard core... by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      It's not encrypted, it's Base64-encoded!

      Learn the difference. sheeeesh.

                -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  15. It actually makes me feel better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple has never been one to sit still when the evil green spotlight of bad publicity is pointed on them. I'm sure that there are teams mobilizing even now... even if those teams are probably mostly lawyers.

  16. Were the backups encrypted? by diamondsw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It should be noted that iTunes does not encrypt backups by default, but you can enable that with a checkbox in the iPhone preferences. So the real question is - with a PIN set and encryption on, can it still be hacked?

    --
    I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    1. Re:Were the backups encrypted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. More questions?

  17. The Real Question is... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1, Redundant

    The real question is whether or not you should be storing sensitive material on your iPhone in the first place?

    If the answer is: What kind of idiot are you? Of course my iPhone is the center of my universe and the repository of everything that will ever matter to me right at my finger tips, then there's a huge opportunity just waiting for some programmer at the Apps Store who can code faster than I can to supply a cheap App that actually provides true security...

    ...provided that Apple and the government will let them.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:The Real Question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love your sig.

    2. Re:The Real Question is... by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Government might, Apple will not unless it randomly falls into a list of auto-approved apps that doesn't exist.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    3. Re:The Real Question is... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I think if you have some data you just have to keep, and there are people willing to break into your home to take it from you, you might be better off with the data in your iPhone than something bigger.

    4. Re:The Real Question is... by PuckSR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummm...no

      Who would store "sensitive" data on a cell phone?
      Well, consider that most companies, agencies, etc consider their email "sensitive". Why do you think most businesses purchase 'smartphones'? TO ACCESS COMPANY EMAIL
      It isn't just a matter of company email carrying sensitive data, it carries normal data that would be highly beneficial to a bit of social engineering.

      Still don't understand the whole 'smartphone'/sensitive data issue?
      Ask yourself this question. Why won't the secret service let Obama carry a regular blackberry?

      If the Iphone is just a regular phone that can browse the internet, then this news is meaningless.
      If the Iphone is a 'smartphone' with relevant business applications, then it needs to be capable of quality encryption

    5. Re:The Real Question is... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Who would store sensitive data on a cellphone? Someone who pitched it to the boss as a backup device.

    6. Re:The Real Question is... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      You access company email remotely. You don't store it locally (it goes without saying you don't use POP for company email). A compromised phone might have the latest email hanging around somewhere, but everything else is safe.

    7. Re:The Real Question is... by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      You're thinking sensitive material as in the plans to the Death Star, or the combination to the bank's vault. However, sensitive material may just be a seemingly inocuous e-mail to your boss telling him how the business proposal was received, or a voice memo you prepared highlighting some new product ideas, while on the road to meet a client.

                -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  18. Re:has it been 2 minutes already? by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    For a moment, I thought you were the author of the Windows File Copy Dialog...

  19. Re:Apple blows. by bertoelcon · · Score: 2, Funny

    My vacuum can suck and blow, but it doesn't have the capacity for hot air that apple does.

    --
    Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  20. curious... by sbeckstead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did anybody else read the docs on this feature? It seems that encryption was only done as a means to remotely wipe the phone. Was he able to destroy the keys remotely and then have someone read the data off the phone? I don't understand.

  21. But it can't be BAD; it's BUILT FROM UNIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And UNIX as we all know is the be-all, end-all in ... ALL !!

    I mean, if this FAILS, what is to keep all UNIX from FAIL ??

    1. Re:But it can't be BAD; it's BUILT FROM UNIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A UNIX, ALL !!

      I, FAILS, UNIX FAIL ??

      Sorry, this is what I read, and it just doesn't seen to make any sense.

      Oh, wait! There were other words in your post! ... Nevermind, still doesn't make sense.

  22. I cracked my iPhone way faster... by tbischel · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is a feature. Cracking is yet another thing about the iPhone that Just Works. I believe Steve Jobs would be proud.

    I Cracked my iPhone the first time I dropped it, 30 seconds flat. But if you read the fine print, it turns out Apples warranty doesn't cover the screen.

    1. Re:I cracked my iPhone way faster... by Steffan · · Score: 1

      I Cracked my iPhone the first time I dropped it, 30 seconds flat. But if you read the fine print, it turns out Apples warranty doesn't cover the screen.

      On the off chance that you're not trolling, why would you think the warranty would cover accidental damage? If I run my car into a tree during the first 5/50, they're not going to give me a new car because the car was defective.

      I think Apple would happily replace the screen if something happened that was a manufacturing defect. If you can convince someone that dropping your phone is the latter, then you have far better debating skills than I.

    2. Re:I cracked my iPhone way faster... by quenda · · Score: 1

      Ha, that's one kind of crack that can be fixed. Just replace the screen with plastic
      like Apple should have done in the first place, if Jobs wasn't so obsessed with form over practicality.

      http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/09/fix-a-cracked-iphone-screen-on-the-cheap.ars

      (then again, replacing cracked screens at $250 a pop is nicely practical from Apple's viewpoint.)

    3. Re:I cracked my iPhone way faster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, have made me guffaw.

      .
      .
      .

      It's been awhile.

    4. Re:I cracked my iPhone way faster... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      A phone that breaks from merely being dropped from a normal height *is* defective. Everyone drops things from time to time - it should be part of the design goals to cope with some moderate impact damage.

      I've seen Nokia phones thrown across rooms and suffer only minor scratches.. those things are pretty durable. I believe blackberries are the same.

    5. Re:I cracked my iPhone way faster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Cracked my iPhone the first time I dropped it, 30 seconds flat. But if you read the fine print, it turns out Apples warranty doesn't cover the screen.

      Sure it doesn't! else how would you see it??! Sometimes I wonder how can people be so clueless...

    6. Re:I cracked my iPhone way faster... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I dropped my RAZR V3i numerous times. I'm 6'7" so the distance to the ground can be significant. The hinge got a little floppy by its end-of-life (a couple years of heavy use mind you) but what usually happened in a fall is that the battery door would fly off like Citroen parts in a collision, and the phone would often not even show a scratch (from concrete and tarmac drops, no less... numerous ones)

      If the iPhone can't handle drops, I'm really glad that ATT doesn't allow their "authorized resellers" to sell them &mdash you have to go into an actual ATT store. I would have one right now, otherwise... (Not sure what the purpose of reducing your sales is...)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:I cracked my iPhone way faster... by babyrat · · Score: 1

      I dropped my iPhone many times (on concrete, no less) before the drop on which it broke. So it CAN be dropped and not break. How many times should one be able to drop it? I've had friends with other phones that have been broken when they dropped them. Perhaps you should investigate the Land Rover phoen if you'd like something rugged.

      BTW while the glass is cracked in the one corner, it is still fully functional and I will be using it until December when I am eligible for my subsidized upgrade to a 3GS.

  23. On the editor side by goombah99 · · Score: 0

    The story blurb was an interesting one aside from the gratuitous flamebait question at the end. Don't the editors do any editing at all. if not we need a new name for the slashdot editors. They seem to have the same no-added value functionality of the men's room attendants who are there to hand you a towel as thought you could not get one yourself.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:On the editor side by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Not that I disagree with you, but you must go to different rest rooms than I do.

      I'm luck to get a paper towel dispenser these days.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:On the editor side by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      There might be a reason guys need a towel in the bathrooms he frequents... ;-)

    3. Re:On the editor side by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      I know it's probably inconceivable to you, but some people actually wash their hands after going to the bathroom. WINK

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    4. Re:On the editor side by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 4, Funny

      They seem to have the same no-added value functionality of the men's room attendants who are there to hand you a towel as thought you could not get one yourself.

      I disagree - the mens room attendant acts like moderators around here do, they keep people from pissing all over the walls.

      The editors, on the other hand, seem to encourage that sort of behaviour!

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    5. Re:On the editor side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two men are in the rest room taking a piss, and they finish about the same time. One goes to leave without washing his hands.

      The first guy says very snidely "At Havaaard Law they teach us to wash our hands when we're doing using the restroom"

      Without missing a beat, the second guy replies "At Bronx City College they teach us not to piss on our hands".

  24. Re:Apple blows. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    The best technique involves both sucking and blowing, in an alternating fashion.

    Microsoft could probably patent it since they've been doing both since Windows 1986 (quite literally the worst OS of that year).

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  25. Oh Great by maiotaku · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh great, now all those secret emails about the money laundering are going to be found by the government because I'm the only major corporate executive who uses an iPhone to talk about all our illegal activities. I thought my data would be so safe, with no other weak links in the chain... like my email server or anything of that sort that could possibly also be hacked...

  26. Re:Apple blows. by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am confused. Does it suck, or does it blow? These are opposites, are they not?

    The verb that solves this logical conundrum is: fellate.

  27. Re:has it been 2 minutes already? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    For a moment, I thought you were the author of the Windows File Copy Dialog...

    I actually miss the animation from the XP file copy dialog. It rotates all the files 90 degrees, turning them imaginary.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. FIPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In this case, the hacker not only had the iPhone in his physical possession, but it was not Remote Wiped, so he also had the keys in his possession. How is it at all surprising that he was able to get in?

    Because if that same hacker had a Blackberry in his possession with encryption enabled, he would not be able to get in.

    RIM has taken the trouble to get FIPS certification for various parts of the Blackberry infrastructure (devices, server software, etc.):

    http://na.blackberry.com/eng/ataglance/security/certifications.jsp

    While it won't handle Secret (or even Confidential), it shows some initiative and effort to protect sensitive information. It should be suitable for most business data (unless government-sponsored corporate espionage is occurring).

  30. Ding ding ding by earnest+murderer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We have a winner...

    The real issue at hand is how much time nerds spend thinking of ways they are right, instead of trying to understand how they might be wrong. iPhone 3gs was never marketed as having strong encryption (http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html), the /. crowd simply saw "something" was implemented and decided that the intent was to hide data.

    --
    Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    1. Re:Ding ding ding by stuboogie · · Score: 0

      "The real issue at hand is how much time nerds spend thinking of ways they are right, instead of trying to understand how they might be wrong."

      Maybe you should follow your own advice. From the Apple MobileMe Site:

      "Protect your privacy with Remote Wipe.

      Addresses, phone numbers, email, photos. Your iPhone contains important and personal information -- information you probably don't want in the hands of a stranger. So if you lose your iPhone and displaying a message on it hasn't resulted in its safe return, you can initiate a remote wipe to restore it to the factory settings.* If you eventually find your iPhone, you can restore your email, contacts, and calendars by enabling your MobileMe account on your iPhone. Or connect your iPhone to your computer and use iTunes to restore the data from your most recent iPhone backup."

      Sounds to me like they are implying your data is secure until you have a chance to wipe it remotely. Maybe that was the "something" the "/. crowd" saw and jumped to the wild conclusion that their data was actually protected???

    2. Re:Ding ding ding by Alrescha · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Sounds to me like they are implying your data is secure until you have a chance to wipe it remotely. Maybe that was the "something" the "/. crowd" saw and jumped to the wild conclusion that their data was actually protected???"

      You know, I read the paragraph you quoted and even after repeated readings never came to the conclusion that you did. In other words, nowhere does it say your data is protected by encryption. The feature it is touting is 'Remote Wipe' and that feature happens to use some encryption to do its business.

      A.

      --
      ...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
    3. Re:Ding ding ding by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "You know, I read the paragraph you quoted and even after repeated readings never came to the conclusion that you did. In other words, nowhere does it say your data is protected by encryption."

      You know, I read the paragraph you quoted and even after repeated readings never came to the conclusion you did. In other words, nowhere does it say he implied the data was protected by *encryption* but just that the data was protected from undesired eyes due to a feature called "Remote Wipe".

      Well, it happens that "Remote Wipe" doesn't protect your data from undesired eyes not even for two minutes as it happens that "Remote Wipe" doesn't even have the chance to work if the burglar happens to take out the SIM card or else acting on a place with no signal, both of which don't avoid the burglar to gain access to "your important and personal information -- information you probably don't want in the hands of a stranger".

      In other words: "Remote Wipe" doesn't stand against the claimed functionality from its vendor by a far margin.

    4. Re:Ding ding ding by stuboogie · · Score: 1

      "In other words, nowhere does it say your data is protected by encryption."

      Well, I never said it DID. I said: "Sounds to me like they are implying your data is secure until you have a chance to wipe it remotely." Which is exactly what they are doing in the following statements:

      "Protect your privacy with Remote Wipe."

      "Your iPhone contains important and personal information -- information you probably don't want in the hands of a stranger. So if you lose your iPhone...you can initiate a remote wipe to restore it to the factory settings."

      These statements imply that your data will be safe because you can do a remote wipe. Just because they omit the fact that the data can be easily hacked before the remote wipe is performed does not negate the fact that they are touting this feature as a way to protect your data. The average consumer will read that description and think: "What a great feature! I feel better knowing that my personal info is safe if I lose my phone."

      If they are not relying on the encryption to protect the data, then they are misrepresenting the capabilities of the feature at best and being outright deceitful at worst.

      Try taking off your rose-colored iGlasses and reread the description and what I actually said instead of trying to discredit my post with an obvious misdirection.

    5. Re:Ding ding ding by superdana · · Score: 0

      A-fucking-men. I'm reminded of a thread a few years back about "what makes a geek." There was all kinds of self-aggrandizing masturbatory bullshit about being more intellectually inclined than everyone else, or more naturally curious--the implication being that non-geeks are just stupid couch potatoes who have no redeeming interests or ideas about anything. But the quality that really stands out, time after time, is the need to prove others wrong. This point is reinforced every time someone's spelling is sarcastically corrected, every time a reply starts with simply "No." or "Um," and every time someone is made fun of for not having encyclopedic knowledge of a particular subject. And it's being reinforced right now, by this stupid fucking article about a person who is so hard up to point and laugh at someone that he can't take the time to stop and think about how the thing he's disparaging might be valuable, even if he's right.

      I'm as guilty of it as anyone else. Look at my comment history and you'll find that I have, quite recently, given people shit for being wrong about something. But it's fucking bullshit, it's the reason the rest of the world hates us, and it needs to stop.

    6. Re:Ding ding ding by Alrescha · · Score: 1

      "...instead of trying to discredit my post with an obvious misdirection."

      You clearly overestimate the significance I attribute to your post.

      A.

      --
      ...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
    7. Re:Ding ding ding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you add me to your foes list? What did I ever do to you?

  31. Encryption is both Complex and Tricky by omb · · Score: 1

    OK, the real problem is expectation and marketing, from the story, the encryption is (egregiously) useless.

    If the device is in your hands, you can physically remove the memory, and then examine it breaking the weak encryption on the fly.

    The marketing (surprise ... ) misrepresents that.

    The trick, instead, is concentrating and protecting important information

  32. That's great, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's great, but... if only someone could crack the ipod classic hard drive secrets as easily. rockbox needs your help.

    1. Re:That's great, but.... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      That's great, but... if only someone could crack the ipod classic hard drive secrets as easily. rockbox needs your help.

      Hm, let's fix the URL above - and this time uncheck "post anon" which automatically got checked for no apparent reason.

    2. Re:That's great, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It knew about your typo.

  33. Mod parent up by Gnavpot · · Score: 1, Redundant

    For this:

    Disk encryption, especially mobile and laptop, should be designed specifically to prevent data retrieval when physical possession is obtained by an attacker.

  34. They forgot the #1 rule to fight off hackers... by dan_sdot · · Score: 1

    They used the password "GOD".

  35. 4 digit PINs and auto-wiping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to add that anyone that thinks a 4 digit pin was ever going to provide any sort of strong protection, particularly for "sensitive data", is an idiot.

    At the worst it'd take less than an hour to brute force it manually.

    Four digits means 10,000 possible combinations. Blackberrys (also four digit PINs) can be configured to wipe themselves after the tenth incorrect PIN entry. So you therefore have a 1 / 1000 of guessing and getting in (assuming the PIN is somewhat random, and not the year of birth of a loved one).

  36. Why can't the hacker get in? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Did you ask yourself that? If that Blackberry is just sitting there, even asking for a passcode, is it still receiving and storing data? It is, it can receive SMSes for example. It knows how to decrypt everything on itself with the information it has. The only difference between it and an iPhone in this case is the hacker doesn't know how to get the data off, not that it is impossible to do so.

    Maybe a Blackberry has a hardened mode, where it goes inert when you lock it, where it won't receive data because it has forgotten the key to its own storage.

    Either way, if you only have to enter a 4-digit number to get in, then even if the device slows down accepting PINs after a while, if you could pry it open and get the data off, all you need to do is try 10,000 combinations and you'll find one that decrypts the internal key needed to view the data on it.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:Why can't the hacker get in? by nxtw · · Score: 4, Informative

      If that Blackberry is just sitting there, even asking for a passcode, is it still receiving and storing data?

      Yes. But the BlackBerry doesn't store the encryption key in-the-clear like the iPhone 3G S does, and you can't run arbitrary code on a BlackBerry just by plugging it in to a PC.

      Maybe a Blackberry has a hardened mode, where it goes inert when you lock it, where it won't receive data because it has forgotten the key to its own storage.

      In fact, it does. BlackBerries even have an option to not encrypt the address book so you can have names appear on caller ID while the device is locked.

      Either way, if you only have to enter a 4-digit number to get in, then even if the device slows down accepting PINs after a while

      No; the BlackBerry (or even the iPhone!) would be configured to wipe the device after a few invalid password attempts. My (corporate managed) BlackBerry wipes the device after 10 invalid password attempts, and my password is longer than 4 characters (and includes non-digits.)

    2. Re:Why can't the hacker get in? by afidel · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Blackberry allows real passwords not 4 digit pins and it has policies to wipe the device after so many bad password attempts. Since the data is all in the corporate email system and can easily be re-uploaded to a new device there's no downside to this, this is very different from the consumer oriented iphone.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Why can't the hacker get in? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      In fact, it does. BlackBerries even have an option to not encrypt the address book so you can have names appear on caller ID while the device is locked.

      They shouldn't leave the address book unencrypted. You could get a fairly significant increase in security with just some simple hashing.

      For the copy on the "public" side (used while the device is locked), you use a database with two keys: hash and cryptname. Use a one-way hashing function on the telephone number and store that in the hash field, then compute a second hash (either with a different hash function or a different "salt" or whatever) on the telephone number, XOR the result with the name, and store the result in the cryptname field.

      When the phone receives a call, hash the phone number. If the result matches the value of the hash field in one row, compute the second hash, compute the XOR of that second hash result with the cryptname field, and display the resulting name. The only way to crack this is to test every possible phone number in the world against every possible entry in the address book. Want to make it harder to crack? Use a slower hash function or hash it a thousand times or whatever. Make it computationally expensive enough that brute force cracking isn't worth the effort.

      To make it even more secure, salt the data before hashing. In other words, take random data and mix it in with the digits of the phone number in some way. Store that random data in another field. By making the resulting input data to the hash much larger than ten digits, this makes it harder to create a website of hash tables of phone numbers. Make this field as large as you want.

      To increase correctness, you should also encrypt a copy of the phone number (using a different hash/salt) to ensure that if you get a hash collision and two numbers end up matching one of the values in the "hash" column, the software can display the correct phone number.

      Is such a scheme secure? No. Is it a heck of a lot better than cleartext? Yes. Is it so simple to implement that it makes no sense not to do so? Also yes.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Why can't the hacker get in? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

      The iPhone also has a setting to wipe after a number of attempts. That was not my point. I didn't say you were going to try to enter 10,000 codes. I said the information necessary to decode the data was in the unit.

      An iPhone is also backed up every time you sync it, you can restore a new phone to be exactly like yours in no time. Apple mentioned this when they announce the remote wipe function of "find my iPhone".

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    5. Re:Why can't the hacker get in? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

      But the BlackBerry doesn't store the encryption key in-the-clear like the iPhone 3G S does, and you can't run arbitrary code on a BlackBerry just by plugging it in to a PC.

      Again, my point was that YOU can't. That doesn't mean it's not possible to do so, you have no proof this cannot be done. Sure, the BlackBerry is supposed to be secured. The iPhone was also supposed to be.

      Either way, if you only have to enter a 4-digit number to get in, then even if the device slows down accepting PINs after a while

      No; the BlackBerry (or even the iPhone!) would be configured to wipe the device after a few invalid password attempts. My (corporate managed) BlackBerry wipes the device after 10 invalid password attempts, and my password is longer than 4 characters (and includes non-digits.)

      Do me a favor, how about you don't prune off the important part of my message.

      Here is my paragraph:

      Either way, if you only have to enter a 4-digit number to get in, then even if the device slows down accepting PINs after a while, if you could pry it open and get the data off, all you need to do is try 10,000 combinations and you'll find one that decrypts the internal key needed to view the data on it.

      That's why I said you would pry the device open and get the data off. What I am saying is that any device that can be unlocked with a 4-digit code has enough information on it to completely decrypt itself based upon only providing a 14-bit (10,000 combinations) piece of information. I explicitly did NOT say you could sit there and try to guess the code by entering it repeatedly. But you pruned that off, so you could say my statement is incorrect.

      It's the same as if I had a 4,000 bit key but I store it inside my house. All you need to do is open my front door (my front door has a lock with only 100,000 combinations) to get inside and get the key.

      It may be difficult to get the right data needed to run the 10,000 combinations through the system (sorry for rapid-fire switching back to the other example) offline, but it is there. If you can exploit your way into the Blackberry like you can the iPhone, then you're a long way down the road.

      And don't say it's impossible.

      http://www.ditii.com/2008/07/17/blackberry-pdf-exploit-exposes-corporate-networks/

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    6. Re:Why can't the hacker get in? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      They shouldn't leave the address book unencrypted. You could get a fairly significant increase in security with just some simple hashing.

      This is why it's an option.

      That when you choose to encrypt the device, you are asked whether to specifically leave the address book decrypted.

      Of course, if network policy is specified, you may not even have that option.

    7. Re:Why can't the hacker get in? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Sure, the BlackBerry is supposed to be secured. The iPhone was also supposed to be.

      The BlackBerry has passed FIPS certifications. For all the touting of "security" and "encryption", I have never heard anyone other than Apple claim that it is secure, certainly not certified.

      (That certain agencies would then choose to implement usage of the iPhone without verification thereof is another issue altogether. There is way too much belief and sentiment that it is the JesusPhone, and a lot of fingers that get put in ears when features, already existing functionality, bugs are discussed in a critical manner.)

    8. Re:Why can't the hacker get in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can define iPhone company policies (and send them to your companys iPhones) that require alphanumeric passwords to unlock The iPhone and erase it iPhone after a specified number of failed attempts.
      This is different how exactly?

    9. Re:Why can't the hacker get in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strictly, the iPhone doesn't store its encryption key in the clear, either. This guy is simply using approved, unauthenticated protocols to access the data directly. It's like taking a TrueCrypt volume and sharing the contents via HTTP. It doesn't protect the data, it just makes it faster/easier to destroy.

    10. Re:Why can't the hacker get in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does the iPhone
      Ignorance is no excuse for bad arguments.

      Find out for sure before you make blank statements about a product you apparently know little to nothing about.

  37. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only in Apple land, this is +5 informative.
    For fuck sake, the whole point of encrypting your goddamn fucking jesus phone is that if it gets stolen, your data is still not available to anybody else.

    Apple fucking whoring mods, at least don't make your mods too blatant that people stop reading any and every apple story out there.

    Fucking apple whores.

  38. Reader Fail by marshzd · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is a pisspoor attempt at trying to discredit Apple for a CONSUMER product. Spore was hacked two weeks before the game was released. The Sony PSP has been hacked since the beginning of it's formation. The X-Box was not only hacked to put in bigger drives, but also was hacked to put Linux on it (which took a little longer but still) Windows XP is easily hacked by booting up in Safe Mode, you have immediate free admin access to add users and change passwords. Windows Vista/2000(2003) Server are all hackable with a quick linux boot CD, takes about three minutes (I've done this multiple times on many machines). You can either change the password, or just load all the persons files onto an external drive (I usually do this for when someone windows dies but you could easily take all their information unencrypted right off). Every consumer device and software product is usually hacked before it's even released, if not shortly after it's released. The fact that this article was just barely posted actually makes me wonder how stupid they are for failing this long at trying to break a consumer product. I've never seen a single ad for the iPhone, PSP, or X-Box advertising their "security". They generally intentionally have loopholes because they realize that users (like the person who wrote this article) are freaking idiots and are going to lock themselves out. The biggest loophole is having an admin user (:O) reset their password. And getting that password from them is as simple as starting their pubes on fire if not using the previously mentioned boot disk to simply wipe the password and log in. This isn't any sort of fail on Apple's part. They can't handle everything in the universe on their phone. Nor was it PSP's fail when it got hacked. Or windows when it gets hacked. There's BLATANT fails that generally get fixed, but not really any here. Sorry folks, move along.

    1. Re:Reader Fail by Grem135 · · Score: 0

      Hmmmmm my admin is password protected, isn't yours? I have recovered info by putting hdd in a linux box (data was marked private so i could not get to it from other windows machines), works great!

    2. Re:Reader Fail by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      I fail to see your point unless you own every iPhone model and try to defend Apple just because you love it. I don't criticize that, but...
      Anyone storing sensitive data into a PSP or Xbox...well, who WOULD? It's a totally different thing. The worst that can happen is someone looking at your game saves, and at the very worst someone purchasing items on whatever online store you have set up, if any. I'd be more bothered if anyone can get my contact information and use it for spam than losing my saves. And generally news regarding a console's hacking are more oriented to "homebrew devs/pirates, get set!". Consoles are also products designed to deliver game content to whoever uses it, so they need no security at all other than profiles or that stuff.
      The windows being hackable thing, now that's more appropriate, since a windows PC stores more sensitive data than consoles.

      Now I am off to encrypt my PSP's data so no hacker will ever steal my records. Damnable ruffians.

  39. backups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...unless you've got it set to delete all data on your phone after 10 incorrect attempts.

    That would make sabotaging someone's phone pretty easy. Just pick it up, make ten wild ass guesses at a PIN, and rest assured their precious data is now gone.

    Your e-mail is on the server, your contacts are sync'd with Outlook / Address Book / whatever regularly, your photos are in Picassa / iPhoto, your music is in iTunes / whatever.

    What's the big deal? Restore from backups.

    It's a temporary DoS until the owner can resync. Inconvenient and annoying yes? Sure, but hardly devastating.

  40. Why Apple is the backdoor to Socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep telling people that Apple is just a closet socialism tool. Nobody believes me. Big brother Steve Jobs makes things for Bigger Brother Obama.

  41. It was as if.. by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    .. a thousand apple fanboi's cried out and then were suddenly silent....

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:It was as if.. by marshzd · · Score: 1

      Read my post. Ignorance is bliss for non apple "fanboi's".

  42. it has failed 5 time on me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It is not just the security issues i guess ...

    I am an Iphone 3G user here in Singapore and the Iphone has failed on me 5 times since i first bought it.

    2 x battery issue
    1 x unable to power on
    1 x unable to get on 3G network on provider Sim card but other works
    1 x unable to charge (the port failed)

    Each of those time, the telcom which i bought the phone from (Singapore Telecom) replace with an unit and i wonder it is refurbished unit ... or there is some serious QC issue ...

    After 5th time, the telcom still wants to replace the same 3G model to me ... i am totally lost confidence ... Sigh i have paid so much to buy it and this is the painful experience since my journey with Iphone ...

  43. A Good Enough Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for Apple to release a patch to . . . re-re-secure devices from Palm?

  44. What, me worry? by jc42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With the iPhone being sold into 20% of Fortune-100s and into the military, just how worried should we be with such shoddy security?

    Well, as someone who isn't part of any Fortune-100 corporation or military force, I guess my response would be "Not at all."

    It's generally understood and widely acknowledged that the secrecy in such organizations functions primarily to keep their inner workings private from their own populations, i.e., us "little people" who pay to keep them running but aren't allowed to look into their inner workings. If they are riddled with holes in their communications because they're using iPhones or MS Windows or whatever, that means that there's a good chance that investigators can find out what they're up to and inform the rest of us.

    Consider the last few years of disasters in the American financial industry. It's pretty clear now that the perpetrators knew quite well what they were doing, and were profiting quite well from it all. It's the "little people" who are paying for the collapse, while the officers of the corporations are still taking home huge paychecks and bonuses. The reason it went on for so long was that the companies involved were able to keep their shady dealings secret from the great majority of their investors. If we'd had better security holes to see inside them, maybe some of the disaster could have been avoided.

    It's hardly a secret that military security primarily functions to hide their internal corruption (and bungling) from their own citizenry. Making their internal communications available to the citizenry via poor comms security seems like a win for the country as a whole.

    (Yeah; I know; "Such a dreamer." ;-)

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    1. Re:What, me worry? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You are rather disconnected from reality. No one who matters in the military, the ones with real secrets, are putting that data on an iPhone. The little people who don't actually know anything truely important are using iPhones.

      We didn't find out about the banking issues because some piece of software was hacked, we found out because the ran out of money to keep the scam going or because someone (not a peon) who was higher up in the organization blew the whistle.

      Most 'leaks' are entirely intentional, some by the company themselves for the press. Some because someone who had the info gets pissed off and rats them out.

      Obama isn't going to wake up one morning and have to confront the press when they ask how his blackberry with the nuclear 'launch codes' on it because they aren't on his blackberry. When someone finds a flashdrive or iPod with some intel on it, it's always old and irrelevent or intentionally released to provide misdirect, which works well for tin foil hats such as yourself. The goverment hasn't had any real fuckups in years.

      The ones you heard of worked perfectly, you believe it and don't bother to look any closer.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  45. Did not do much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All he did was disable a four-digit passcode lock. Let's see him install an enterprise configuration with full security settings and then bypass that. First, the standard consumer device does not have all the features enabled out of the box; you have to turn them on (see the documents here). Obviously a four-digit passcode can be cracked in at most 10,000 tries (that is, his software could have connected to the device, read the encrypted data, and tested decryption with all 10,000 possible keys); you need to configure the device to use a longer passcode for enterprise security.

  46. Re:Apple blows. by dotar · · Score: 1

    This thread is fellatious.

  47. Re:Apple blows. by NightRain · · Score: 4, Funny

    The best technique involves both sucking and blowing, in an alternating fashion.

    Isn't that also known as breathing?

  48. much-touted? by csimicah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wasn't even aware of this feature until I started reading echo-chamber blog articles about how weak the encryption was. This doesn't make the issue any more or less legitimate but it sure does make the post seem a little fantastic.

  49. Re:Apple blows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am confused. Does it suck, or does it blow? These are opposites, are they not?

    first it sucks, then it blows.
    --
    DK

  50. It's Mega Maid, sir -- by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

    She's gone from suck to blow!

    --
    To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  51. Thanks Steve! by Sailing_Nut · · Score: 0, Troll

    Thank you Apple for protecting me from myself yet again. I certainly wouldn't want to hide anything from the government! I LOVE the way that Apple "just takes care of me!" It's the best thing I've ever had!

  52. Re:Apple blows. by Randall311 · · Score: 1

    No, it's a jet engine. It sucks and blows at the same time.

  53. If I have access to the physical phone by MeNeXT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    regardless of who manufactures it, I have access to the data. If I have access to the physical machine I have access to the data. If you are carrying sensitive information and the only thing blocking my access is a four digit code then you are an IDIOT regardless of what OS you are using.

    Common people where is the news here? You actually think a Blackberry, Nokia or any other phone on the market today has any kind of encryption that can't be broken into with a bit of research.

     

    --
    DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    1. Re:If I have access to the physical phone by fadir · · Score: 1

      Pretty fitting post!

      As my former employer (mmo developer) used to say: Why the heck should we invest time and money into encrypting our protocol to protect the client from being run via proxies to cheat, when there is literally no way to enforce it because as soon as you own the end point (in that case the game client, in the case here the mobile phone) you have (fairly easy) access to everything anyway.

    2. Re:If I have access to the physical phone by kwerle · · Score: 1

      Cute username.

      ...

      Common people where is the news here? You actually think a Blackberry, Nokia or any other phone on the market today has any kind of encryption that can't be broken into with a bit of research.

      Yes.

      http://www.resourcecenter.blackberry.com/resource/xHCO-BlackBerry_Enterprise_Solution_Security_version_4.pdf

      I'd rather use an iPhone, but company policy is BB. Then again, the BB is encrypted. 10 bad attempts at a password and it nukes itself.

      The US does not make it easy to sell encryption products, but this (slip from Apple) is pathetic. I'm generally unhappy with Apple's security standards. AFS mounts in the clear by default, and inconvenient to do securely? Come on.

    3. Re:If I have access to the physical phone by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Most security measures are designed to thwart low level attacks.

      A 4 digit pin number will indeed keep most attackers at bay, same goes for screen-saver passwords. Or even the lock on your front door.

      Although I can not deny the problem that exists when highly confidential data is protected ONLY by one of these low level options, similar to using a $2 padlock to secure a missile silo.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    4. Re:If I have access to the physical phone by miro+f · · Score: 1

      If I have access to the physical machine I have access to the data.

      Ever seen a Thales card payment system HSM? These are the devices that protect your PIN, credit card verification number, bank interchanges, all sorts of different keys. Try getting an encryption key out of one of those:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_Security_Module

      Not to mention any modern EFTPOS devices, while more compact. are good enough that pretty much anyone can be given one and we can remain confident that the key is safe in there.

      When you control the hardware, it is possible to hide the key. Not that I'm saying these devices will never be cracked, but the technology to do so certainly doesn't exist today.

      Disclaimer: I work in security for a bank.

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    5. Re:If I have access to the physical phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arrgh! All my ATM cards have 4 digit PINs (and numbers only).

      Stay away from my wallet, you.

  54. More like assholetage by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    That would make sabotaging someone's phone pretty easy. Just pick it up, make ten wild ass guesses at a PIN, and rest assured their precious data is now gone.

    Nope, it's on the computer they sync with.

    All you managed to do is prove you are an asshole, not actually destroy anything (except perhaps something they did that day).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  55. Re:Apple blows. by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

    That's what she said!

    --
    Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  56. The answer: web based and cloud by fadir · · Score: 1, Troll

    I'll probably get moderated troll for that but it's pretty obvious to me:
    Put your data into a (trusted) cloud and not onto the phone itself, use encryption on the way and you are as safe as you can get. The phone is only useful when connected anyway, so why should I have to carry the data on the phone?

    1. Re:The answer: web based and cloud by kkelly · · Score: 1

      I'll probably get moderated troll for that but it's pretty obvious to me:
      Put your data into a (trusted) cloud and not onto the phone itself, use encryption on the way and you are as safe as you can get. The phone is only useful when connected anyway, so why should I have to carry the data on the phone?

      The phones are useful when not connected because you have stored your important data on the device. Because cell phone coverage and WIFI are not ubiquitous, a phone connected to the cloud is essentially useless in the absence of a signal. I have visited places all over this country where a flare gun would have been more a effective means of communication than my smartphone, but I could still call up that important office document, pdf or diagram because it was stored locally on the device. Less secure, probably. More convenient, absolutely.....

      --
      K
  57. Impossible to have more secure iPhone too by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    On other smart phone platforms, if your data is really precious and if you need more than average security, you install security solutions.

    As my data is not that precious, I have just trialed commercial, easy to install security solutions like Kaspersky Mobile, F-Secure. Both has firewalls on socket and application level, heuristics, anti spam, remote locking and in Kaspersky'es case, even a "white hat rootkit" to track your phone after it has been stolen. I can easily say that they will be never possible on iPhone since Apple won't allow anything running in such deep level 24/7 and commercial security companies won't tell people how to crack their device to install or put any work in such EULA breaking application.

    There are far more basic but real solutions like an application turning off Bluetooth after certain amount of time, tens of password vaults which all uses different systems (so hard to target) and especially J2ME apps which enjoys sandbox provided by Java naturally. They aren't possible too.

    On the other hand, the solution making sense is also impossible with current policies. I mean "iPhone enterprise edition" which would allow such solutions from trusted Apple partners. If you have single more model of iPhone doing better things, entire iphone scheme is broken.

  58. Bout time too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good nice to see that freakin Apple are in the shit again all i can say is keep it up find more holes in those pox infested iPhone things
    in fact in Apple in general

  59. Why blame the devices... by UBfusion · · Score: 1

    when the devices are not to blame at all? It's the users who are the weak link, since they are not actively and proactively educated to protect themselves.

    This security theater has been staged centuries ago. I believe that all devices are expressly designed to be crackable or with backdoors for various reasons. True security is worth true money (think of banks) and true privacy is reserved for government use.

    If our society (and governments) were really interested in protecting our privacy and our assets, there would exist several laws enforcing manufacturers to state explicitly in their products' User Manuals, and using big bold letters, disclaimers like this:

    "WARNING! This device does NOT provide security in case it comes to the wrong hands. Therefore, do NOT use it for storing passwords, bank account details or any sensitive information. Our Company cannot be and will not be held liable for the loss of your Identity, Material or Intellectual Property or for other damages etc etc"...

    I don't care whether the Device Under Test does not claim to offer any security in its specifications. What I'm raged about is that it does not state explicitly, in a language comprehensible even by a child, that "the device does NOT offer security, don't use it as a safe, don't trust it, period".

    In this sense (unless such a disclaimer actually exists in the iPhone's user manual), I accuse Apple (and any portable device manufacturer at that) of actively and purposefully misguiding customers into a sense of false security hidden behind the bling (damn, it costs $650, has all these PINs and passwords and fingerprint/face recognition, it must be totally secure!).

  60. "Cracked" by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    I realize the submitter might not know the meaning of the word, but the editor could have at least glanced at the article and realized there's no cracking involved.

    I know, "welcome to Slashdot."

  61. Privacy glass by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

    it's 'like putting privacy glass on half your shower door.'

    So, he's saying that the encryption is perfectly adequate for male users, whereas female users are less well protected, but at least it stops people seeing the really good bits?

  62. This is completely lame by Xyde · · Score: 1

    The article clearly says that this requires a jailbroken iPhone...which requires restoring the phone anyway, therefore erasing everything in the process. It's worse than useless and just a bunch of FUD.

    1. Re:This is completely lame by TiberiusMonkey · · Score: 1

      I do seem to be reading a lot of these articles on the web lately where some random guy screams "zomgz teh iPhone is totally insecure" and then a mass of comments follow ripping on iPhone/Apple security. Then after reading the article myself I always read the same thing, "requires a jailbroken phone".

  63. Re:Apple blows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, "sucking" is a misnomer. Vacuums do not suck, technically they push (matter is "pushed" into the vacuum). :)

  64. Commenter Fail by CaptainJeff · · Score: 2, Informative

    Interesting how your argument is that Apple considers the iPhone a CONSUMER device, but markets it, also, as a BUSINESS/ENTERPRISE device.

    http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/

    It's odd that Apple would get a pass on not properly securing their CONSUMER phone that is also marketed as "the best phone for business."

  65. Re:Apple blows. by Golddess · · Score: 1

    In the words of Bart Simpson, "I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows."

    On a side note, I'm surprised no one made this Simpsons comment yet.

    --
    "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-