Slashdot Mirror
Apple's iOS 4 Hardware Encryption Cracked
adeelarshad82 writes "Russian company ElcomSoft is claiming to have cracked the 256-bit hardware encryption Apple uses to protect the data on iOS 4 devices, and is offering software that allows anyone to do it. ElcomSoft can now gain full access to what is stored on a gadget such as the iPhone 4. This includes historical information such as geolocation data, browsing history, call history, text messages and emails, usernames, and passwords."
... there's a way. Always.
This just lets you brute force the passkey, easy as if you're using a 4-digit numeric passkey there are only 10000 combinations.
If you're using a more complex alphanumeric key, which can be enabled with the iPhone config utility, then this probably won't work that well...
What thou doest encrypt thou can decrypt. Unless the encryption keys are not also stored on the device...sigh....
Wake me up when somebody makes a free tool that does this.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Or nevermind. The source where I read this news claimed that, but it seems it relies on a brute force attack, although they do have an algorithm to get a set of valid testing keys.
Year of the Mac Attack.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So why doesn't the fantastic mathematically complex encyption ever work? Why should I trust https? Or any other encrypted transmission?
Encryption does work: the flaw is normally in the key handling.
There's a fundamental incompatibility between security and convenience: people encrypt the data on their phone with 256-bit AES using a password of 'password' and are surprised that it can be broken. Or they rely on the phone to encrypt their data with a key that is... stored on the phone.
How would you feel about taking a user-input password and using an algorithm to generate a computationally convenient key?
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Because the only other option is just never to communicate information. All encryption can be undone given enough time, processing power, and a big enough sample of the data. The critical thing is just keeping up with the changning tactics and standards.
because they didn't crack it at all.
they did the next best thing which is bruteforcing.
although, in this case it seems they can actually extract the encryption keys to bruteforce them somewhere else. something that shouldn't be possible in good encryption.
Good encryption requires a good "key". Forget password, think passphrase.
Encryption is great when it's somebody intercepting your messages or data, but not so useful when they have access to an endpoint.
The effectiveness of a good lock is severely reduced if you can't remove the keys from it. Most hardware like this has a copy that can be gotten at by the diligent. It's how bluray ended up losing it's DRM.
Oh, and this.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
It seems like this would work on any phone, in principle. If you're using a 4-digit numeric password to protect your phone, any kind of phone, yeah, somebody's eventually going to crack it in a non-end-of-the-universe timeframe, if they get unattended access to it, and you don't remote-wipe it.
Use an alphanumeric password to protect your phone. Also, it's got a ton of your stuff on it, never leave it unattended for extended periods of time, never give it to people you don't trust. A cellphone is a very personal frob and no amount of engineering is going to make it safe from hacking, modulo the sensitivity of the data contained therein -- even if you pick a 20 char, completely random password, nefarious folk can still dust the screen for fingerprints, or surreptitiously videotape you unlocking your phone...
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
They are liars. This tool just does a brute force attack against a backup of the device, then once the key is found it can be used against the actual device. If you have a simple password this might work, if not too bad for them.
The only lessons here are always use long passwords and "security" companies are often 1 shade off of scammers. Even simple phrases like "And its fleece was white as snow" makes a decent passphrase due to length, changing it to "And) its( fleece* was6 white5 as4 snow3" makes it even better and still easy to remember. Just a phrase and a pattern. Sure random is even better, but most users won't bother to even use a simple phrase.
Well, the flaws are always implementation details. Implementation details are usually botched in mobile devices, for convenience of the designer and (perhaps) because of hardware limitations, and in web applications, for the sake of interoperability and usability. And stupidness. Don't forget the stupid.
But, if you use a known good implementation (as much as it can be known, but pretty good with some FOSS) yourself (not implemented by a web service, but by you on your machine), then it's much less likely to be vulnerable, because the convenient and intentional weaknesses tend to be eliminated.
It's a case of "damned if they do and damned if they don't" for Apple currently.
This is precisely what happens when you turn yourself into an "evil" company like Sony did and Apple are a long way through the process of doing - you will attract the hacker community and there will be thousands of people simultaneously trying to shame that company.
It's "infinite monkeys & infinite typewriter" syndrome - the majority of hackers will have no success with breaking into the systems or devices, but because there's *THAT MANY* doing it *ALL OF THE TIME*, eventually some will be successful.
As someone who works in security, I can tell you honestly that no company reveals successful or failed hack attempts on their systems unless they really have to - in the case of the Sony credit cards, they *HAD* to because of the potential fraud on those cards that could take place.
So you can pretty much guarantee that Sony, Apple and other "Evilcorps" are being pounded & hacked all of the time, but they hush it all up as best they can.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
The encryption itself is solid. What falls most of the time is the specific implementation. Say for example I made the choice to encrypt my hard drive but didn't use an already baked system like Ubuntu's home drive encryption. Instead I decided to do it by hand and code my own pre-boot initramfs to automatically handle decryption by hashing some hardware specific identifier from the bios. Except that since I'm not a security expert, I made some foolish coding error which allowed the hash to be intercepted or easily guessed. Then some hacker comes along, figures it out and now has full access to my encrypted data.
In this case the encryption itself is sound, and wasn't cracked, instead my shotty coding and/or lack of solid security knowledge was exploited. 9 times out of 10 this seems to be the case when encryption is defeated (brute forcing aside of course).
To answer your question though, why should you trust HTTPS? I'd say that you can never be 100% sure, but HTTPS has been around long enough to have been well tested by by people who rely on it being solid (banks, etc) that you're probably pretty safe. Rest assured that if HTTPS's implementation of encryption were cracked, it'd be news, and you'd know (I assume).
Just to be clear on this.
The encryption algorithms are publicly documented for methods like RSA, Bluefish or any of the other countless ones - that's the point behind them being used the world over.
But knowing *HOW* the encryption is done still doesn't get you in because you still need to get or work out the encryption key that's being used.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Standard != Implementation
The idea behind it is rock solid, but the engineering aspect is a bit tricky.
Only relatively short and simple passwords can be recovered in a reasonable time.
Even simple phrases like "And its fleece was white as snow" makes a decent passphrase due to length, changing it to "And) its( fleece* was6 white5 as4 snow3" makes it even better and still easy to remember.
And you're going to type that in every time you use your phone?
Coming up with a good passphrase is much easier than convincing people to go to the trouble of using one.
What does that even mean?
iPhone Cracks YOU!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The application is called the ElcomSoft Phone Password Breaker and costs around $320 for the Professional edition.
So this is not going to be another way to get your own apps onto the iPhone without jailbreaking, but rather reducing to a $320 barrier and sufficient period of time of your not having possession of your iPhone modulo the weakness of your passcode to your plausible deniability that someone has planted something on or used your iPhone for nefarious purposes without your knowledge.
Remember, the answer to the question "Has this item ever left your sight?" is always "Of course it has." The question is to establish your liability for the contents therein.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
They ARE talking about AES. No one uses asymmetric encryption for large amounts of data, due to its slow speed.
Way to go ElcomSoft! Good to see hackers sticking it to the once hacker-originated Apple Computers Inc. Sad to see that Apple Computers has become another catholic church style entity.
Wow! Up your meds, dude!
Regardless of your platform choice, are you REALLY lauding the efforts of hackers whose efforts will not hurt Apple, but rather only the unfortunate users of their products?
What about the people who have been handed an iPhone/iPad by their employer? Do they deserved to be hacked, too?
Perhaps its time for you to head to the nearest psychologist/psychiatrist. What you are experiencing is commonly referred to "Misdirected Anger", and is usually a sign of some OTHER significant "perceived wrong" you have suffered.
Or perhaps, you're just an arrogant dick.
You can bet that US and other law enforcement have probably been given the keys already. After all, how else would those [unconstitutional] mobile phone searches of US citizens used during US border crossings be able to work so easily and efficiently?
Not as good as a genuine key, but way better than something that can be guessed to some approximation. Assuming, obviously, that "user input" is a strong key to begin with.
Folks have a hell of a time understanding the difference between security and cryptography, and the misleading sensationalist headlines don't help.
Cryptography is merely the study of hiding and unhiding information. It doesn't secure information. Security is about securing information from unauthorized access. These guys attacked the security of the device, probably through the protocol or through insecure hardware.
If the crypto itself (probably AES-256) had been broken, the NSA would have had some big problems on their hands due to the fact that the same crypto is used in the publicly-available Suite B algorithms.
From my reading of their FAQ, it seems that this tool can be used to decrypt the encrypted backup images that iTunes takes when syncing the phone, not the phones themselves.
Am I wrong? If it's the backup images, then I see the potential attack vector as slightly less serious as an iPhone is usually a lot easier to lose / have stolen from you than the machine you sync it with.
The thing about encryption is, it's the timeliness of data.
Anyone relying on encryption to store any data for any long periods of time are confused. Any encryption system, no matter how complex, can he defeated, given time, resources, and perhaps some skulduggery.
Look at WWII and the German Enigma machine. It was no more than a computer, and very hard to crack, in fact, it couldn't be cracked on the basis of the encrypted information itself. But it did it's job, messages were secure for the length of time that they needed to be, and even if it was decrypted after the fact, it didn't matter. It took the Allied forces stealing an Enigma device and code book to actually crack Enigma encrypted messages.
The same goes for anything, it's timeliness of information. If you encrypt something long term, and someone gets ahold of it, and they want it bad enough, and have the resources at their disposal, they will in time, get at that information.
Bottom line is 2 fold actually, timeliness of information and the fact that locks only keep honest people honest.
...security is already compromised. We've known this forever. This new method requires 40 minutes of physical access to the phone. Either your phone has already been stolen, in which case they have all the time in the world to try number codes until it opens up for them, or it's been taken by the police, in which case you can probably be compelled to provide the codes necessary to access the device. Either way, this doesn't change too much. And if either of those concerns you as being too risky, why were you using a mobile phone to keep sensitive information in the first place, instead of something designed specifically to hold confidential information?
Even better, just speak into the phone and say, "My voice is my password".
Computer experts have cracked the encryption
Can you please point out the experts who have cracked RSA, DSA, DH, ElGamal, or ECC? Oh, right, the math has not been cracked, the only things we hear about are:
Also, nobody speaks of 256 bit RSA in this century; the recommended key size for use with a 128 bit block cipher is 3072 bits when I last checked.
Palm trees and 8
Apple doesn't hide rootkits in their software or media files.
Maybe not. But they were summoned to the US Senate to answer questions on privacy concerns over what they track & why they track it unencrypted.
Apple doesn't actively prohibit "rooting" of their devices.
I think you need to read the last 2 lines about possibly denying sevice on this page.
Apple doesn't pursue the iOS "hacker" community with legal threats, DMCA takedown notices, etc.
It has put the mechanisms in place to do so in the future though.
Apple doesn't embrace DRM every day, and in every way (they DO have to put up with SOME DRM due to pressures from "content providers"; but it is obvious they chafe against it).
Apple dropped DRM from iTunes about 2 years ago. It could be argued that they bowed to pressure from their user base after the Sony rootkit and CD DRM fuss. I have not come across a DRMed CD for some years now because of the stink DRM caused.
Apple doesn't infest its products with an OS (Windows 7) that has DRM from the driver-level up.
I'm mainly a Linux guy, I'm still using XP for some stuff but haven't played with Windows 7 much beyond setting up some laptops for colleagues - therefore I'm no expert on it. However, I am not aware of any restrictions on Windows 7 that stop you running non-DRMed formats on it exactly as you can do on previous iterations of Windows. I am led to believe that it provides a *platform* for DRM, again probably bowing to the same pressures from the RIAA that you said it was perfectly okay for Apple to have done during the early days of iTunes.
Just because you select a list of reasons why Apple are not evil does not mean they are not evil in other ways.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Since when did a brute force dictionary attack become encryption breaking?
Ahh, I love when people with no clue repeat crap they found on the Internet.
Show me something that doesnt' generate keys using an algorithm ... I won't be holding my breath. Any good security system uses an algorithm for key generation ... with a RANDOM mutator. Not all keys are created equal, some are known to be weak, throwing those out is paramount and users simply aren't worth shit at generating random keys, so you use an algorithm known to generate strong keys with a random mutator.
Let me help you out as to the standard way all of us that actually know about encryption do it: RFC 2898
Again, please do not talk about security and encryption when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and are just spewing some blurbs you read from someone on the Internet, which again, you clearly didn't understand them when you read them.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Why does the software permit repeated rapid login attempts? Why isn't there some sort of exponential back off time between retries?
Rest assured that if HTTPS's implementation of encryption were cracked, it'd be news, and you'd know (I assume).
SSL 2 has been cracked. Weak ciphers used in SSL 3 and later have been cracked. SSL renegotiation has been cracked. Root certificates owned by governments whose interests are not aligned with those of the United States and western Europe have been included in major web browsers' default repositories. And yes, they were all news.
> Apple doesn't hide rootkits in their software or media files.
Nor are they a content company like sony is.
> Apple doesn't actively prohibit "rooting" of their devices.
Yeah, steve just loves those jailbreaks right? Its not like the appstore tries to prevent this or anything.
> Apple doesn't pursue the iOS "hacker" community with legal threats, DMCA takedown notices, etc.
Apple tried very hard to prosecute people who develops and performs jailbreaks but where shot down by the courts. They also issue dmca takedown notices to any hacker community who would have the balls to inform people how to install or virtualize osx on a pc (Which is a 100% pure drm stye lockdown as a modern mac IS a high spec pc) regardless of wether they want to buy the software.
> Apple doesn't embrace DRM every day, and in every way
Osx is locked using drm to prevent it running in a virtual enviroment (Which really sucks for developers), and iPod is most certainly an attempt of a locked in device that uses both drm and propriatary formats to faux competitive mp3 players. Only the competition forced them to abandon this strategy.
> Apple doesn't infest its products with an OS (Windows 7) that has DRM from the driver-level up.
Ehh..What do you mean? And how does that compare to sony anyway???
> Now, let's compare the above to Sony... ....
You don't do drive encryption with asymmetric encryption, not if you actually want to use your data at any reasonable rate.
You generate a large key for symmetric encryption, then encrypt that key using asymmetric encryption.
Browsers for instance only use RSA for the initial key exchange, and then fall back to using AES or whatever is supported by both ends. Your https sessions use RSA for about 80 bytes of data exchange before the web server actually starts communicating with the client, your GET / request is sent using symmetric encryption, as is the response that comes back.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Yes, because that is uncrackable unless you can convince a woman go to dinner with a nerd, which we all know would never happen in the real world...
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Can someone explain the incongruity between these two statements:
"Don't worry, your data is encrypted with 256-bit RSA."
"Computer experts have cracked the encryption."
So why doesn't the fantastic mathematically complex encyption ever work? Why should I trust https? Or any other encrypted transmission?
There's no incongruity between the statements because a simple 256-bit RSA is not a great way to encrypt data.
http://gizmodo.com/303171/apple-says-unlocked-iphones-will-brick-after-software-update-+-what-does-it-mean
That story from 2007 is not a threat, it's a warning that users can wipe out data on their jail broken phones and possibly not get it back.
http://news.cnet.com/apple-iphone-jailbreaking-violates-our-copyright/
Apple's responding to a complaint the EFF made. There's no Apple equivalent of GeoHot.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/05/08/01/0421248/Mac-OS-X-Intel-Kernel-Uses-DRM
You're 1 for 3. The ppl who spent mod points on this post didn't read the stories that were linked to.
Unless you encrypt your backups and forget your password or your backups are stolen, its pretty much pointless.
I really don't see the point in encrypting my backups because well, if someone can get to my backups, they'd be far better off just taking the source data off my laptop.
Seriously, by the time someone can get to your backups, they have a larger more important device at their finger tips ... you know, the device that the iPhone got the data from in the first place, just use the source.
This is basically like being proud that you can decompile a windows app ... and ignoring the fact that you already have the source code since you wrote the app in the first place.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re: your sig:
> If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Not if every possible universe exists simultaneously and every time you roll a die you simply move to the matching universe-state.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
You only need a key size that big if you're doing asymmetric keys -- see Schneier and ridiculous key lengths. The encryption on these phones is symmetric, and the reason it's so easy to crack is the 256 bit keys are in fact selected from a very restricted space: they just take four numeric digits from the phone entry and then maybe hash them to get better bit coverage.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Looks like TFA didn't read TFA.
Or misunderstood it big time. All of the comments are also about their OLD TOOLS which are related to brute forcing and analysing the BACKUPS and have nothing to do with this hardware encryption getting cracked.
If you read the blog post they say there that there is some data that's not included in the backup that you can access with the hardware encryption keys.
Also they're saying they don't want this ending up in the "wrong hands" and will only offer it to governments and such.
Apple doesn't hide rootkits in their software or media files.
Maybe not. But they were summoned to the US Senate to answer questions on privacy concerns over what they track & why they track it unencrypted.
Google, who is responsible for Android, was also called to those hearings. Apple sent a vice-president in charge of software development. Google sent a lobbyist. Apple voluntarily has already taken steps, and has promised to take further steps, to reduce both the amount of "tracking data", and to encrypt what data the user's phone does store. What has Google done/promised (I honestly don't know on that one)? But don't let facts available for nearly two months stop your rant.
Apple doesn't actively prohibit "rooting" of their devices.
I think you need to read the last 2 lines about possibly denying sevice on this page.
Yeah, EULAs always sound terrible. But point to me one instance of Apple actually doing that. [Crickets]
Apple doesn't pursue the iOS "hacker" community with legal threats, DMCA takedown notices, etc.
It has put the mechanisms in place to do so in the future though.
Again, the potential of doing it; but obviously Apple is just putting that in as a guard against an unforseeable "worst-case-scenario" threat. And again, please show me a single instance of Apple actually making good on any sabre-rattling. And didn't it get settled nearly a year ago that "Jailbreaking" was NOT illegal? Do you see Apple actively fighting that with signed bootloaders, security fuses, etc, like some Android Device manufacturers? So, your point, again?
Apple doesn't embrace DRM every day, and in every way (they DO have to put up with SOME DRM due to pressures from "content providers"; but it is obvious they chafe against it).
Apple dropped DRM from iTunes about 2 years ago. It could be argued that they bowed to pressure from their user base after the Sony rootkit and CD DRM fuss. I have not come across a DRMed CD for some years now because of the stink DRM caused.
ANYTHING "can be argued". But at least Apple's CEO published an Open Letter publicly decrying DRM. Has Sony? Howabout Google?
Apple doesn't infest its products with an OS (Windows 7) that has DRM from the driver-level up.
I'm mainly a Linux guy, I'm still using XP for some stuff but haven't played with Windows 7 much beyond setting up some laptops for colleagues - therefore I'm no expert on it. However, I am not aware of any restrictions on Windows 7 that stop you running non-DRMed formats on it exactly as you can do on previous iterations of Windows. I am led to believe that it provides a *platform* for DRM, again probably bowing to the same pressures from the RIAA that you said it was perfectly okay for Apple to have done during the early days of iTunes.
When Apple was starting out with iTunes, NO ONE would have signed up without DRM, and you (and everybody else) knows it. Even when iTunes had DRM on music, it was the weakest DRM possible. Individual songs weren't DRMed, per se; only Playlists were copy-restricted. NOTHING (but trust) prevented the user from deleting the Playlist, and recreating it, thus garnering another seven (then five) copies of a particular song. And let's not forget that iTunes also allows creating an Audi
My bad, didn't get that you were replying to that.
And yes, 256-bit RSA is trivially decrypted, has been for quite a while.
He's still right. Apple is very good at protecting their business and has a very clear vision how things should work and an unbending will to see it through, but I can't see anything genuinely evil here. In fact lots of things Apple does are rather considerate and cautios. iTunes has DRM but still you can install the apps and music you bought on all iPads and iPhones and iPods you may own. Same with the Mac App Store: You have more than one Mac? Buy once, install on all. They don't give your data to the newspaper publishers, they use random IDs for iAD instead of Device-IDs without anyone asking them to do that. They don't code their iOS apps in a way to fail on jailbroken devices. They may go after people who try to attack them, but they quite surely respect their users and customers.
And even if the file system encryption in iOS is less than perfect at least there is encryption, other than with Android which has none at all.
Will Apple start issuing lawsuits and court orders left and right to try and stop this? And if so will it distract people from Sony's recent actions along those lines?
I doubt it. ElcomSoft's products are favorites of law enforcement and Apple employs some crypto people who know exactly what they're doing with the product's design.
Law enforcement raids journalists' houses and confiscates their computers for Apple, Apple leaves room for law enforcement to buy software from Russians to use against Americans.
Apple's encryption was not cracked. The passphrase to the key was brute forced.
Or maybe it was the fact that Apple's passphrase implementation allowed trying more than three passphrases in three minutes, or more than 24 passphrases in 24 hours.
Renegotiation worked as intended
A system is only as secure as its deployed implementations. If every widely used implementation of TLS fails to treat a renegotiation as a FIN, then TLS fails to treat a renegotiation as a FIN.
I question your understanding of the facts and what "cracked" means.
We have run into Layne's Law of Debate, and useful discussion can't proceed until we get our definitions straight. A cipher is only one step in a complete cryptosystem. If you intend the word "crack" to apply only to a dramatic reduction in the effort needed to brute-force a cipher, what word do you prefer for breaking parts of the system other than the cipher?
Read the part of my post that you quoted, and you'll see that I did not say anything that contradicts what you or Schneier said. When using a 128 bit block cipher, the recommended size for your asymmetric keys is 3072 bits for non-ECC algorithms (e.g. RSA). That is not a ridiculously long key size, given the state of the art attacks on the RSA problem, nor does it exclude the smaller symmetric key size. I was responding to a statement about "256 bit RSA," which is ridiculously short.
Palm trees and 8
And it also gives you the right to use an apostrophe correctly! Hint: you're not!
Apple doesn't actively prohibit "rooting" of their devices.
http://gizmodo.com/303171/apple-says-unlocked-iphones-will-brick-after-software-update-+-what-does-it-mean
From the linked article:
"But first, the bricking. Was this done on purpose? Lam doesn't think so. Jacqui at Ars believes that the firmware was completed weeks ago, and the bricking is unintentional."
Apple doesn't pursue the iOS "hacker" community with legal threats, DMCA takedown notices, etc.
http://news.cnet.com/apple-iphone-jailbreaking-violates-our-copyright/
Partially true. Apple did say this, and a Federal Court disagreed. Apple however, didn't appeal the decision, and unlike many Android device manufacturers, has not done an end-run around that decision by putting "fuses" in their microcontrollers, signed bootloaders, etc.
So, it seems that Apple had one opinion, and the Feds had another, but in the end, Apple respected the process. It sure seems like those other manufacturers are simply taking a disingenuous advantage of the fact that the lawsuit didn't name them, specifically, and that Android users (and curiously, the EFF) seem to be disinterested in pursuing the issue. Wonder why? Could it be that the EFF has an Anti-Apple bias? Nah, couldn't be!
Apple doesn't infest its products with an OS (Windows 7) that has DRM from the driver-level up.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/05/08/01/0421248/Mac-OS-X-Intel-Kernel-Uses-DRM
Wow! Old story much?!? How long did you have to search for that one!?!
If you look at the article, you will see that that referred to the DEVELOPER PREVIEW PLATFORMS when Apple did the Intel Switch. The TPR protection did NOT make it into the actual RELEASE CODE. Obviously, Apple had a pretty strong interest in keeping their very-restricted Beta release OS protected. Let's see what that actually ended up being in the RELEASE code. A simple deleteable file and deletable kernel extension that says "Please Don't Steal OS X". Wow. Some DRM! This article refers to TPR on OS X as "The Myth That Won't Die." And of course, the very existence of Hackintoshes kinda belies strong TPM protection, doesn't it?
As I said: DISinformative. But his post is modded +5 Informative, and mine will be punish-downmodded, of course.
Ah, undergrads. I love how smart they are. Able to master an entire domain in a single semester..
Now, if you don't mind, I have to go hook my atomic vector plotter up to my preferred source of entropy (a nice cup of hot tea substitute). I'm going on a trip..
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
This may be flamebait but its the truth. Unless the platform is truly open you have no control. Security it out the window because it cannot be independently audited.
Apple doesn't hide rootkits in their software or media files.
Maybe not. But they were summoned to the US Senate to answer questions on privacy concerns over what they track & why they track it unencrypted.
Google, who is responsible for Android, was also called to those hearings. Apple sent a vice-president in charge of software development. Google sent a lobbyist. Apple voluntarily has already taken steps, and has promised to take further steps, to reduce both the amount of "tracking data", and to encrypt what data the user's phone does store. What has Google done/promised (I honestly don't know on that one)? But don't let facts available for nearly two months stop your rant.
Umm, so Apple treats your privacy slightly better than Google does.
Not a very high standard, now is that?
(Yeah, this will piss off all the brainless Googlebots. GOOD!!!!!)
Osx is locked using drm to prevent it running in a virtual enviroment (Which really sucks for developers)
It is? You mean the single file "/Volumes/Mac OS X Install DVD/System/Library/CoreServices/ServerVersion.plist" that has to exist before Parallels or VMWare will consent to installing MacOS X in a VM? The file that VirtualBox last I checked didn't care about at all? While Apple actively declares in their EULA that MacOS X (The client version, the server version EULA contains no such specific requirement) can not be installed in a VM, the actual prevention of it is being done purely on the VM side in my experience. Now mind you, they do require it to be on a VM on "Apple Branded Hardware", though again I've seen nothing specific that forces that beyond a expectation of honesty from their users.
Now in my personal experience, while working on kernel extensions as a developer, I've had on and off again luck installing OSX in VM's. As Apple's motherboards aren't exactly stock off the shelf boards. So at points the VM software hasn't exactly provided a bug free experience, but that's not really Apple's fault, they write their OS for hardware they control, it's purely up to the VM authors to provide an environment that emulates the hardware appropriately. This is true of Windows as well, I would -love- to see Microsoft provide a update to DirectX that allows it to be easily virtualized by the VM makers. But at the end of the day, Microsoft writes their own OS to existing hardware, not tailored to the VM makers virtualized hardware. I'm assuming the investment isn't worth the cost for either OS vendor.
> Apple doesn't hide rootkits in their software or media files.
Nor are they a content company like sony is.
Are you actually DEFENDING Sony's rootkits HERE, on Slashdot?!? Wow! No wonder you posted AC!!!
> Apple doesn't actively prohibit "rooting" of their devices.
Yeah, steve just loves those jailbreaks right? Its not like the appstore tries to prevent this or anything.
Huh? Citation, please!
> Apple doesn't pursue the iOS "hacker" community with legal threats, DMCA takedown notices, etc.
Apple tried very hard to prosecute people who develops and performs jailbreaks but where shot down by the courts. They also issue dmca takedown notices to any hacker community who would have the balls to inform people how to install or virtualize osx on a pc (Which is a 100% pure drm stye lockdown as a modern mac IS a high spec pc) regardless of wether they want to buy the software.
First, Apple had one opinion, the EFF had another. The Feds sided with the EFF. However, since then, Apple hasn't tried to do an end-run around that decision, like many Android Device manufacturers. No "fuses" in microcontrollers. No encrypted bootloaders. In short, no REAL effort to stop Jailbreaking. In the end, Apple respected the adversarial process. Doesn't make them evil. At all. In fact, quite the opposite.
As far as their prohibition against virtualizing OS X: As Apple has stated many, many, many times, they are a HARDWARE company. That is unabashedly they claim to make their money. Not from the sale of OS X. So, their prohibition against virtualizing OS X on non-Apple hardware is exactly in concert with their prohibition against installing it directly on non-Apple hardware. Their OS. Their rules. Doesn't make them evil, though. Just protecting their primary revenue stream, which is the sale of HARDWARE.
Besides, as pointed out in this article, it is quite possible to install OS X on, for example VMWare running under Windows 7, just like it is quite simple to install OS X on any number of hardware-compatible non-Apple computers. Apple says "Please". It does NOT run around like the Artist Now Again Known as Prince, (or the widow of Frank Zappa!), filing DMCA takedown notices of Hackintosh websites, or articles like the one above regarding installing OS X (illegally) on VMWare Server on Windows 7, let alone prosecute anyone who attempts to do so. Illegally.
> Apple doesn't embrace DRM every day, and in every way
Osx is locked using drm to prevent it running in a virtual enviroment (Which really sucks for developers),
No it isn't. See above.
and iPod is most certainly an attempt of a locked in device that uses both drm and propriatary formats to faux competitive mp3 players. Only the competition forced them to abandon this strategy.
Anyone can CLAIM anything without proof. But I DO know that NOBODY forces Steve Jobs to do ANYTHING. And least of all, write an Open Letter decrying DRM, like this.
> Apple doesn't infest its products with an OS (Windows 7) that has DRM from the driver-level up.
Ehh..What do you mean? And how does that compare to sony anyway???
> Now, let's compare the above to Sony... ....
How does it compare to Sony? Sony COULD install Linux on its machines (Apple doesn't count; because they have created their own OS). But instead, they have embraced Vista, and then Windows 7. I can't find the article now, but both have so much DRM that, even after Vista shipped (which was LONG after there was a "driver stable" version available for developers) ATi couldn't even write a damned video card driver! I guess
Can someone explain the incongruity between these two statements:
"Don't worry, your data is encrypted with 256-bit RSA."
"Computer experts have cracked the encryption."
So why doesn't the fantastic mathematically complex encyption ever work? Why should I trust https? Or any other encrypted transmission?
Because encryption cannot get around having physical access to the device. Even being on the same network (subnet) makes things measurably easier as most OS's don't do anything about a brute force attack.
Once you've got physical access, you can easily use brute force to crack encryption, your only limitation is time. Reading the article, they have physical access to the devices they are cracking. Considering that ElcomSoft makes tools for forensics not attackers it makes sense that you'd have physical access.
Encryption does work, as network security but not as physical security. My WPA key on my home wireless network is there to stop people who are locked outside my house, it does nothing inside as someone can walk up to the modem and use a blue cable.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
If every possible permutation exists simultaneously, there both is and is not a God, but where he is, he's irrelevant. Except when he's not. And he has an impeccable memory. Except when he doesn't. :)
N/T
Okay, lemme see.... I have a password "hunter2". I also have supersecret porn I'd like to encrypt with AES. I'd like to use my human-rememberable password for the encrypted AES data.
Now, I challenge you to make a 256bit key from "hunter2" without using an algorithm to generate it... And yes, I'd do like to be able to decrypt it with the same password. And no, "hunter3" should *not* unlock it.
If you can do that, then I will admit that you *DO* know something us normal hobbyists don't.
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
I have an iphone, and several other phones (blackberry, android etc)...
And correct me if i'm wrong, but when i power on the devices they boot up, and then automatically start talking to the network and retrieving email etc...
Surely then, even if the data stored on the phones built in flash is encrypted, the key to that encryption must also be on the phone somewhere in order for it to boot on its own, otherwise it would require the key be entered in order to boot at all.
Surely then, given that the encryption key must be stored somewhere on the device, its only a matter of having the necessary skills (or easy to follow instructions) in order to work out where that key is stored and how to use it to unlock the data.
The key lock on the screen is irrelevant, as the phone has already booted and is working in the background.
So you basically have security through obscurity.. And you can bet that there are nefarious groups out there who have already worked out how to extract unencrypted data from all of the major phones.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Google, who is responsible for Android, was also called to those hearings.
I did not say Google are not evil, I said Apple are evil.
Yeah, EULAs always sound terrible.
But it's in there - therefore Apple CAN legally use it if they want to.
Again, the potential of doing it; but obviously Apple is just putting that in as a guard against an unforseeable "worst-case-scenario" threat.
Again, it's in there. Therefore they can use it if they choose to do so.
Now, let's compare that with Sony, where it took the DoJ rattling its sabre for them to stop putting rootkits on their audio CDs.
DRM disappeared on CDs completely - because the record companies had to bow to company pressures.
Media companies do not want anyone to own anything because they want a regular payment, rental model. Apple facilitated that by allowing DRMed music to be sold through iTunes - yes, it made the record companies sign on but Apple made a huge amount of money from it - that's basically saying they were "in league with the devil".
They changed the DRM model because Sony's stupid rootkit fiasco brought it to the public attention, it became very unpopular and Apple had to backtrack. Period.
Oh, one final point. Do you not find it more than coincidence that Apple removed DRM from music downloads about the same time Amazon started offering DRM-free music. Yet Amazon are much smaller than Apple, wield less corporate power as a consequence, yet have never been *forced* to offer DRMed music. Explain that one.
Name three.
I did - please read my previous post again if you can't see them.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
As I said: DISinformative. But his post is modded +5 Informative, and mine will be punish-downmodded, of course.
Actually, the opposite is the case.
This is apple.slashdot.org, not the main domain. I wonder if they will ever disclose how much Apple paid to lease the subdomain.
Apple should just offer the means to view in regular format your stuff on your iphone in order to do easy backups....drag and drop from your device into a windows folder in order to have more control over the file system. Heck, the only reason why i would consider this tool, is to make sure my backups are properly made, that itunes has to be the worst piece of crap software i have ever used.....this whole thing with trying to manage your allowed devices vs. trying to limit who will replicate the data (if at all)....is really a pain in the backside. I get it for mp3s, but why cant i just be able to see my notes or my documents that are NOT mp3s in order to just drag and drop which i want to copy over, they are my notes after all......
Unless someone has a better system with their backups for their iphone that i am not aware of which they could share with me,
i guess i will be one of their first client in north amercia for their new tool....
why should I want to make a 256 bit key from hunter2? If you're going to generate a key using an algorithm, it is recommended that you use a 64bit initial key.
Apple seems to have done exactly that. They generated something something starting from a 4 digit number. That's why it only takes 40 minutes to access the information you need to decrypt everything.
(Apple doesn't count; because they have created their own OS).
Not really. They tried to create their own modern OS in the late 90's. Finally after spending many millions on the project, they gave up and allowed themselves to be taken over by NeXT instead. Then they slapped their gui-paint layer on top of UNIX like some fat chick going to the disco slaps pasty makeup on.
Apple's developers don't seem to have the skill-set needed to create a robust multi-tasking OS. They concentrate more on 'style.' One-button mice (yeah, yeah, we know that was in the past.) They're a company of marketers, where trademark-buzz like 'Quicktime' and 'Altivec' are the trump cards.
Article is misleading... "This includes historical information such as geolocation data" unless they are talking about your photos, there really isn't any geo data. "browsing history, call history, text messages" are not encrypted on iOS4. "emails, usernames, and passwords." These actually are all encrypted. So this tool lets you brute force a passcode so you can get the e-mails stored on the phone. Usernames are there, but what they are for is hashed in way you can't really map it back to what it's for. The passwords are hashed using an method which I don't know of anyone having broken yet.
> Apple doesn't hide rootkits in their software or media files.
Nor are they a content company like sony is.
Are you actually DEFENDING Sony's rootkits HERE, on Slashdot?!? Wow! No wonder you posted AC!!!
No, he was just saying that you can't congratulate Apple on not doing something that they couldn't do anyway, in the same way that you couldn't sensibly praise Google for not using WMDs on Martian babies (yet).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Based on the information in the Elcomsoft Phone Password Breaker FAQ the article makes some mis-statements. The article states the software allows you : '... to recover data and perform forensics on devices." but according to the FAQ the software does not operate on the device itself but rather on backups:
Q: So, what is it all about?
A: Phone Password Breaker takes care of password-protected iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad backups.
The article also states: "What ElcomSoft did was to create a toolkit that allows for the extraction of the encryption keys from such a device." but again according to the FAQ you cannot recover encryption keys from the device. As stated above the software only works on backups. In fact they state at the very top of the FAQ: Q: Will your product jailbreak my iPhone, unlock it from the carrier, remove passcode lock, or reset a SIM card PIN code? A: Sorry, no way. This also debunks the various posts claiming that this attacks the iphone unlock password. According to the FAQ, the software performs a tailored brute force attack on iphone and blackberry backups which have a different password than the device unlock password.
Shut up with the Evil Company scare tactics already. They are a company, they are trying to make money, serve customers AND protect their brand. Put those all in the same bowl, mix well, and then tell me if some compromises aren't necessary?
And I would also make the assertion that not only "Evilcorps" are hacked, but charities, squeaky clean companies, and little saintly grey haired grandmas are hacked. Apple/Sony/etc. aren't hacked because they are evil, they are hacked because they exist at all.
So, your initial post in this thread said,
Now you are suggesting that Apple are fools because they are not making users memorize 64-bit initial keys? That's a twenty digit number!
Also, you said that they should not use an algorithm at all to generate keys, because that is a big fail. So, in order not to fail, in your opinion, Apple must require users to type in a 256-bit key in order to access their data. A key which originated from a true source of entropy the phone has access to, like maybe RF noise.
So, chief, how many 79 digit numbers do YOU have memorized? None? Do you think maybe that's why the second responder in this thread was mocking you?
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
But... Why stop with 64bit? Let's just force people to remember a 256bit key. Which they'll have to type in every time they use the phone. And the timeout should be 15 seconds, so an attacker can't use an idle session.
Now, you start selling that. Meanwhile, Apple is for some reason having huge success with it's 4 digit number. For some reason, most consumers don't want to memorize and type in huge keys to use the phone.
On the other hand, those that go into advanced mode on the phone and turns on a proper password lock can put in a larger and more complex password.
Designing something secure works well in theory, but in real life, one have to make some tradeoffs. What you do is complaining about Apple's tradeoff, without giving any reasonable alternatives, and apparently without seeing the issue at all. Which is why he started mocking you in the first place :)
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
multipart/mixed did not say you had no idea what you were talking about. You did. The comment was snide-like but saved in the end with an excellent and pertinent reference to a wonderful book. Now for your homework, what's the name of the book?
This aint Daytona and you aint Dale Earnhardt. So stop trying to draft on Interstate 40.
I think you've summed it all up quite nicely. And haven't.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
what I meant by an algorithm was:
X+1 = new key
Day of fabrication = new key
IMEI = new key
if you use that to generate your 256bit key you're failing.
And you misunderstood. Normal users chose nothing. It's apple that choses and no user should have access for to it.
PS: I was under the impression that an HEX 64 bit key was 10 numbers/letters. It's not a key a user should know, but if it was, is 10 that hard?
Very simple.
You use your 4 digits to unlock your phone.
Your encrypted files should not be encrypted by those 4 digits. And if those 4 numbers are part of the way they generate the key, the other part should not be accessible by anyone that already has those 4 digits. That was where they failed.
What's the point of having 256 bit encryption if, trully, they rely on something that weak?
"please do not talk about security and encryption when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about"
Please teach me english, I seem to be failing at reading.
You maybe you are. Not sure yet. But that part where he says "you have no idea what you'te talking about" is interesting.
> "This is precisely what happens when you turn yourself into an "evil" company like Sony did and Apple are a long way through the process of doing".
This will happen regardless of whether you are an "evil" company or not. The biggest factor seems to be how big your userbase is.
As I said: DISinformative. But his post is modded +5 Informative, and mine will be punish-downmodded, of course.
Actually, the opposite is the case.
This is apple.slashdot.org, not the main domain. I wonder if they will ever disclose how much Apple paid to lease the subdomain.
Oh, I see... Now SLASHDOT is in on the CONSPIRACY!
LOL!
If that were the case, why have I seen the score on my original comment steadily go DOWN from 2 to 0 over the course of the past several hours?!?
Better put another layer on that tinfoil hat! The mind-control rays are OBVIOUSLY still leaking in...
Google, who is responsible for Android, was also called to those hearings.
I did not say Google are not evil, I said Apple are evil.
I see. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? So, how does that address the valid point I made?
Yeah, EULAs always sound terrible.
But it's in there - therefore Apple CAN legally use it if they want to.
I heard your speculation the first time; no need to repeat it. However, I still challenge you to find a single instance of Apple exercising that right. Like all large companies, Apple has a legal department. A LOT of the time, companies let things go into a contract or EULA just to shut up their OWN legal team, with no actual intention of ever enforcing the language. And yes, that's what I am saying is what happened, here. And besides, the EFF case pretty much nullifies that language, anyway, doesn't it? So now what are you saying that "Apple could do"?
Again, the potential of doing it; but obviously Apple is just putting that in as a guard against an unforseeable "worst-case-scenario" threat.
Again, it's in there. Therefore they can use it if they choose to do so.
No they can't; per the EFF case. And I pointed that out, both in my original reply to your response to my original comment, and in this further reply, too.
Too bad, just like before, you aren't letting long-settled facts mitigate your rant. You do realize, of course, that that is a sign of mental illness...
Now, let's compare that with Sony, where it took the DoJ rattling its sabre for them to stop putting rootkits on their audio CDs.
DRM disappeared on CDs completely - because the record companies had to bow to company pressures.
WTF are you SMOKING, and can I have some, please?!?
The record companies had to bow to... WHAT?!? What "company" are you talking about?!? Or are you talking about "The Company" (as in the CIA), LOL?!?
The DoJ (actually, it was the DHS) made it CRYSTAL CLEAR to Sony that the user's computers WERE NOT THEIRS to install rootkits (or anything else) on. It wasn't "industry pressures", it was the threat of CRIMINAL PROSECUTION and GOVERNMENT REGULATION that moved them. That, and pressure from retailiers, who were getting sick and tired of handling more and more RETURNS for media that SIMPLY WOULD NOT PLAY in many devices.
But, my original comments still stand: Steve Jobs called for an end to DRM. And NOBODY forced him to do THAT!
Media companies do not want anyone to own anything because they want a regular payment, rental model. Apple facilitated that by allowing DRMed music to be sold through iTunes - yes, it made the record companies sign on but Apple made a huge amount of money from it - that's basically saying they were "in league with the devil".
Once again, iTunes is NOT, repeat NOT, a major PROFIT stream for Apple. This asinine meme simply HAS to die, along with your other ridiculous claim: ZOMG! the OS X Kernel is DRM'ed...
But again, you have demonstrated that even when the facts are presented in rebuttal, you simply argue on and on and on.
They changed the DRM model because Sony's stupid rootkit fiasco brought it to the public attention, it became very unpopular and Apple had to backtrack. Period.
Oh, one final point. Do you not find it more than coincidence that Apple removed DRM from music downloads about the same time Amazon started offering DRM-free music. Yet Amazon are much smaller than Apple, wield less corporate power as a consequence, yet have never been *forced* to offer DRMed music. Explain that one.
I agree that that gave A
Shut up with the Evil Company scare tactics already. They are a company, they are trying to make money, serve customers AND protect their brand. Put those all in the same bowl, mix well, and then tell me if some compromises aren't necessary?
And I would also make the assertion that not only "Evilcorps" are hacked, but charities, squeaky clean companies, and little saintly grey haired grandmas are hacked. Apple/Sony/etc. aren't hacked because they are evil, they are hacked because they exist at all.
THANK YOU!
That is the most concise, insightful comment I have EVER read on the topic of Apple == The Evil One(tm)!
Mod parent +100 Insightful!!!
(Apple doesn't count; because they have created their own OS).
Not really. They tried to create their own modern OS in the late 90's. Finally after spending many millions on the project, they gave up and allowed themselves to be taken over by NeXT instead. Then they slapped their gui-paint layer on top of UNIX like some fat chick going to the disco slaps pasty makeup on.
Since NeXTStep was already a GUI-based BSD/Mach "UNIX", what you REALLY mean is that Apple applied some cold-cream, wiped off the NeXT makeup, and THEN slapped on Mac makeup, LOL!
While I admit that that was the original plan, things didn't exactly work out that way... At least Apple was willing to accept that they couldn't realize their overly-ambitious Rhapsody/Copland "Red Box, Blue Box, Yellow Box" OS. But even then, they were able to back-port much of that development back into MacOS 8 and 9, and even OS X (what do you think "Classic" mode was?). So, not nearly as much of that work was wasted as one would initially think.
As for being taken over by NeXT, that meme started because of so many NeXTStep/OpenStep engineers that were subsequently hired by Apple to work on the Rhapsody/NeXTStep integration that was to become OS X. But the simple fact of the matter is, Apple wrote the check, not NeXT.
Apple's developers don't seem to have the skill-set needed to create a robust multi-tasking OS. They concentrate more on 'style.'
No. They already had that in the form of A/UX, But it wasn't really suited for a consumer-grade OS. What the issue REALLY was that, Apple didn't have TIME to finish what they had started, and the intended project was frankly too ambitious for ANYONE to complete in a reasonable timeframe. At least Apple was smart enough to recognize that, and act accordingly.
One-button mice (yeah, yeah, we know that was in the past.) They're a company of marketers, where trademark-buzz like 'Quicktime' and 'Altivec' are the trump cards.
QuickTime was a groundbreaking suite of APIs (and they had to call it SOMETHNG), which was then shamelessly subsequently ripped off by Microsoft (with the help of Intel). Altivec is a Motorola (Freescale) trademark, not Apple's. In fact, Apple always referred to Altivec as the "Velocity Engine".
Seriously mods? Are you perhaps unaware of the whole recent Geohot thing and Sony's response to it? And how the hacker community _seems_ to have responded to that? Or is it somehow being a troll to wonder if Apple, when confronted with a very similar situation will make a similar decision and be faced with a similar response?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank