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."
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...
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.
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"
FYI guys, ElcomSoft is the company where Dmitry Skylarov worked -- the research guys who cracked the encryption on Adobe's PDF files.
Skylarov was arrested after flying to the U.S. to give an eBook security talk at DEF CON under the DMCA for software copyright circumvention blah blah.
http://www.object404.com
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.
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.
Only relatively short and simple passwords can be recovered in a reasonable time.
...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".
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.
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
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
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.
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
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()?
> 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
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.
(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".