Slashdot Mirror


DOJ Says iPhone Is So Secure They Can't Crack It

zacharye writes "In the five years since Apple launched the iPhone, the popular device has gone from a malicious hacker's dream to law enforcement's worst nightmare. As recounted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Technology Review blog, a Justice Department official recently took the stage at the DFRWS computer forensics conference in Washington, D.C. and told attendees that the beefed up security in iOS is now so good that it has become a nightmare for law enforcement."

106 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. Government Computer Skillz by ryanov · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've never been too impressed with government agencies and their knowledge of computing.

    1. Re:Government Computer Skillz by Sparticus789 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was at this conference, the running joke was "If it's encrypted, forget about it!" Everyone knows this. FDE and utilities like TrueCrypt will always prevent data recovery, save for the human factor of giving up the password.

      Also at the conference was the strong difference between American and British/Australian law. In the U.S., the 5th Amendment prevents someone from being required to turn over their password. The Brits and Aussies do not have this problem, as the 5th amendment doesn't exist for them.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    2. Re:Government Computer Skillz by spire3661 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its a problem, they just choose to ignore the human side of the law. The position the British have taken on this is untenable.

      --
      Good-bye
    3. Re:Government Computer Skillz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The burden of proof is on you, not them, under UK law, provided they can prove you ever had access to the password.

      Or to put it another way, you are responsible for maintaining accurate records of every encryption passphrase you ever use.

      Enjoy your SSH session keys.

    4. Re:Government Computer Skillz by Migraineman · · Score: 4, Informative

      They don't need to. That's what "Contempt of Court" is for - toss you in the clink until your memory improves.

    5. Re:Government Computer Skillz by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

      And all their non-administrative work has been contracted out years ago due to the small government initiative. So while folks (consultants) working at one or another of the facilities can be quite computer literate, the actual government employees might not be.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    6. Re:Government Computer Skillz by GigG · · Score: 2

      You just keep counting on those legal provisions.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    7. Re:Government Computer Skillz by pluther · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Technically, in the US, under the NDAA, they can just decide you must be a terrorist if you're hiding something, and shoot you.

      (Well, technically, they'd have to turn you over to the military and have them shoot you...)

      This is unlikely to happen in very many cases, however, even though it's legal.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    8. Re:Government Computer Skillz by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the U.S., the 5th Amendment prevents someone from being required to turn over their password.

      This is still unsettled. The 11th Circuit Court has ruled that passwords are protected under the 5th amendment. However the 10th Circuit has chosen not to intervene in a lower court decision that forced a woman to decrypt her laptop.

      This is going to have to go to the Supreme Court eventually, and I think you can guess how the fascist majority of justices will decide.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Government Computer Skillz by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      It's simple. First you hack their Amazon account, then that gets you into Google, and from there breaking into the iPhone is easy enough for a 14 year old.

    10. Re:Government Computer Skillz by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wikipedia sez:

      In civil contempt cases there is no principle of proportionality. In Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), a U.S. court of appeals held that H. Beatty Chadwick could be held indefinitely under federal law, for his failure to produce US$ 2.5 mill. as state court ordered in a civil trial. Chadwick had been imprisoned for nine years at that time and continued to be held in prison until 2009, when a state court set him free after 14 years, making his imprisonment the longest on a contempt charge to date.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:Government Computer Skillz by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So.... if you really *DID* forget the password, you could be looking at spending the rest of your life in prison, even if you never did anything wrong... simply because somebody thought you were guilty, and you had a faulty memory?

    12. Re:Government Computer Skillz by luther349 · · Score: 2

      this is more then5th Amendment issues. nobody accused has to turn over anything that hurts themselves. courts like to forget that.

  2. Welcome to my Nightmare by carrier+lost · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gee. The government can't spy on you using your own hardware?

    This is truly frightening.

  3. Re:I don't believe it by TheLandyman · · Score: 5, Informative

    I believe, as of iPhone 3GS, it does.. but I'm too lazy to google and confirm.

  4. sounds like a challenge by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (also article is a little too breathlessly enamored of apple: PR astroturf?)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:sounds like a challenge by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Any sufficiently rabid fanboy is indistinguishable from a shill.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  5. Good. by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

    It's a start.

    1. Re:Good. by DJ+Jones · · Score: 2

      In unrelated news: Apple sued by DOJ for breaking anti-trust laws. Suit settled out of court for unknown damages.

      ....Soon thereafter, US Homeland Security Agency states "we have no more concerns regarding apple's encryption systems".

  6. And if you believe that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...I've got some "moon" rocks I'd like to sell you.

    Honestly, this seems like a way to trick dumb criminals into thinking their information is secure just because they use an iPhone. If this were truly the case, and the DOJ does really have problems in dealing with iOS devices, I'd expect them to remain tight lipped about it.

    1. Re:And if you believe that... by Dins · · Score: 2

      If this were truly the case, and the DOJ does really have problems in dealing with iOS devices, I'd expect them to remain tight lipped about it.

      No, they'd strong arm Apple into providing them with back doors and then remain tight lipped about it...

    2. Re:And if you believe that... by grantspassalan · · Score: 2

      If in the first public trial it came to light that the DOJ of the government had a way to decrypt any iPhone, the secret would then become public knowledge. So far there has been no such trial.

      --
      A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
  7. Oblig xkcd by ginoledesma · · Score: 2

    How long until they just resort to this?

    1. Re:Oblig xkcd by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hitting people with wrenches is forbidden by the Bill of Rights.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:Oblig xkcd by plover · · Score: 2

      Using evidence in court that was obtained by hitting you with wrenches is forbidden, nor can they use information derived from that information. (Fruit of the poisoned tree.)

      Depending on the data, though, they may not be nearly as interested in prosecuting you.

      --
      John
    3. Re:Oblig xkcd by KhabaLox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hitting people with wrenches is forbidden by the Bill of Rights.

      Your point being....?

      Didn't stop them from hitting Padilla or Manning with metaphorical wrenches. A couple more direct examples: reporters jailed (or threatened with jail) for not revealing their sources.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    4. Re:Oblig xkcd by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Which is why they just water board you, for extra Bill of Rights goodness they do that at a military base on a small island nation right off the coast.

    5. Re:Oblig xkcd by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

      Only if done as punishment. According to Scalia, as long as it's not punishment, torture is constitutional.

      STAHL: If someoneâ(TM)s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person â" if you listen to the expression âoecruel and unusual punishment,â doesnâ(TM)t that apply?

              SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think â" Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I donâ(TM)t think so.

              STAHL: Well I think if youâ(TM)re in custody, and you have a policeman whoâ(TM)s taken you into custodyâ"

              SCALIA: And you say heâ(TM)s punishing you? Whatâ(TM)s he punishing you for? ⦠When heâ(TM)s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldnâ(TM)t say heâ(TM)s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Oblig xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "What is he punishing you for?"

      Sadly the answer to that is so bloody obvious that it strains disbelief that Scalia wouldn't know it before he asked the question.

      Quite simply, he's punishing you for not telling him what he wants to hear. That's all torture is good for anyway. If you torture someone long enough, they'll eventually figure out what you want to hear and start singing that tune like a canary. Note: What you want to hear has little, if anything, to do with the truth (except, perhaps, by coincidence).

  8. Obligatory tinfoil-hat quote by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, yes, that's what they'd like you to believe, isn't it?

  9. Re:Completely false by hawks5999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That video is over 2 years old. Re-read TFS.

  10. Re:I don't believe it by 1s44c · · Score: 2

    It seems you are right. I'm impressed.

  11. Re:I don't believe it by TheLandyman · · Score: 5, Funny

    As an iPhone user since the first model, I've never been penetrated through my back door... willingly or otherwise.

  12. TWO WORDS by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    iCloud Supoena.

    So, the "remote control" is uncrackable? iCloud and Siri and "location awareness" with GSM, WiFi and GPS make the security of the actual device nearly an orthoganal proposition to any enforceable protection for the user or data.

    When this is so clearly a form of misdirection, I can't help but wonder the purpose of a DOJ statement like his being made public. Which perception and behaviour are they trying to influence, and by whom?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:TWO WORDS by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Isn't the iCloud stuff (specifically, the device backups) also AES encrypted with a key Apple doesn't have? I will have to dig up the article, but I'm pretty sure I saw that.

      No.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:TWO WORDS by poetmatt · · Score: 5, Informative

      quite the opposite, apple holds the key - so all it takes is a gov't request to apple and they have the master key.

      http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/04/apple-holds-the-master-key-when-it-comes-to-icloud-security-privacy/
      http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/04/can-apple-give-police-a-key-to-your-encrypted-iphone-data-ars-investigates/

      Given their policies regarding a number of things which are dinosaur-era, we don't have an answer to whether or not they will give it away or not. I don't know that an official statement has ever been made by apple. The question is - do you want to trust that information with apple? Specifically: 100% uncertainty? That's not a "apple is evil, apple is not evil".

    3. Re:TWO WORDS by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When this is so clearly a form of misdirection, I can't help but wonder the purpose of a DOJ statement like his being made public

      Setup for a false flag operation:

      - DOJ publicly claims Device X is secure from their snooping
      - Suckers fall for the ploy and migrate to Device X, assuming it's safe from prying gov't eyes
      - DOJ forces Device X's manufacturer, via NSL or similar devious means, to turn over user information.
      - Device X's user has no idea what's going on, thanks to draconian EULA and ToS, until jackbooted thugs kick in the door.

      It's quite brilliant, really. Or, would be, if not so obvious.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:TWO WORDS by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can't help but wonder the purpose of a DOJ statement like his being made public.

      It was a higher-up in the DoJ (specifically, Ovie Carroll) discussing challenges in digital forensics (at a conference on digital forensics). It was a brief mention in a larger talk and a fact that does not surprise anyone in the field. It's well-known that pulling data off of an iPhone can be a real pain in the ass. (IMO, I would consider Android worse, as there is not yet a reliable technique that can pull data off of an unrooted phone without modifying the phone's data, and data modification -- even when justified and documented -- is a big problem in some jurisdictions.)

    5. Re:TWO WORDS by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Or, would be, if not so obvious.

      Why? Hidden in plain sight while diverting attention elsewhere. The government can anything it wants in broad daylight in our new post 9/11 world. And the drones (the human kind) nod in approval.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:TWO WORDS by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except what you're describing is not a false flag operation.

      False flag (also known as black flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.

      This may be a disinformation campaign but unless the DOJ is posing as someone else, it's not a false flag.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:TWO WORDS by Tuidjy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Basically, Apple has the ability to decrypt the data, and all the government needs is a court order to force them to do so. At the same time government officials are deploring their ability to access the data. Three possibilities that I see:

      1. The government is attempting to deceive people into storing data where government officials can access it with a court order.

      2. Some government officials do not have a problem admitting that they would love to access personal data without a court order, i.e. without probable cause.

      3. Some government officials do not mind to supplement their income by advertising for Apple.

      I frankly would have no problem with 1), would not be surprised by 3) but suspect the answer is 2)

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    8. Re:TWO WORDS by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wish I could anything I wanted in broad daylight.

      College would be so much more fun.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:TWO WORDS by medcalf · · Score: 2

      Well, bummer. One more reason not to move stuff over to iCloud (besides the use case issues).

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    10. Re:TWO WORDS by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You forgot possibility #4...

      An Apple fanboy writes an article praising the iphone using out of context quotes from the CEO of Paraben (not the DoJ) saying there have been cases where Paraben couldn't defeat iPhone encryption and a a DoJ official talking about hard drives (not the iPhone) saying that "if you pull the power on a drive that is whole-disk encrypted you have lost any chance of recovering that data" (which isn't true, btw). Then a second fanboy reads said article and translates it to "iPhone is the DOJ's worst nightmare" and submits it to Slashdot where samzenpus demonstrates the usual lack of even the barest hint off fact-checking and gives us a headline like this one.

    11. Re:TWO WORDS by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's misdirection to misdirect you from the misdirected misdirect, and time passes more slowly at each level of misdirection until you spend a lifetime misdirected into Limbo! THAT'S WHEN THEY GET YOU! #theyareouttogetyou

    12. Re:TWO WORDS by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      OF COURSE they have a key. Any cloud-based data you can access through a web browser requires as much - whether it's with Apple, Amazon, Dropbox, Google...

      And per one of your links, right after they say "of course Apple has a decryption key":

      Still, vice president of products for cloud security firm Echoworx, Robby Gulri, noted that Apple is following best practices used throughout the industry. "Apple has taken the right steps to protect users' data and privacy as far as a widely public service like iCloud goes," he told Ars. "For example, data is transmitted using SSL, data is encrypted on disk using 128-bit keys, and Apple has stopped letting developers use individual UDIDs."

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    13. Re:TWO WORDS by Pieroxy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, bummer. One more reason not to move stuff over to iCloud (besides the use case issues).

      Mind you, it's the same reason to not move your data anywhere.

    14. Re:TWO WORDS by chilvence · · Score: 2

      Thankyou... for the voice of reason

      I used to think slashdot was supposed to spare you from the usual pointless waffle that fills tech mags because the journalists were scraping the bottom of the barrel for something to write about. Unfortunately...

    15. Re:TWO WORDS by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure how those things are relevant. The article talks about device security, not cloud security. Lest everyone forget, the same subpoena can get the same data from Google, Microsoft, RIM, etc.

      If you decide to not use the cloud and the police get your device, it's currently more secure on Apple's phone. Must every article turn into a religious war?

    16. Re:TWO WORDS by DJRumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      FYI, this is the source of the summary quotes (adhoc as they are) and also addresses other questions regarding device security as opposed to iCloud security which has nothing to do with the linked articles.

      "I can tell you from the Department of Justice perspective, if that drive is encrypted, you're done," Ovie Carroll, director of the cyber-crime lab at the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section in the Department of Justice, said during his keynote address at the DFRWS computer forensics conference in Washington, D.C., last Monday. "When conducting criminal investigations, if you pull the power on a drive that is whole-disk encrypted you have lost any chance of recovering that data."

      At the heart of Apple's security architecture is the Advanced Encryption Standard algorithm (AES), a data-scrambling system published in 1998 and adopted as a U.S. government standard in 2001. After more than a decade of exhaustive analysis, AES is widely regarded as unbreakable. The algorithm is so strong that no computer imaginable for the foreseeable future—even a quantum computer—would be able to crack a truly random 256-bit AES key. The National Security Agency has approved AES-256 for storing top-secret data.

      Apple did not respond to requests for comment on this story. But the AES key in each iPad or iPhone "is unique to each device and is not recorded by Apple or any of its suppliers," the company said in a security-related white paper. "Burning these keys into the silicon prevents them from being tampered with or bypassed, and guarantees that they can be access only by the AES engine."

      It also notes the key here, that while the device is powered on, it is still possible to obtain the key from memory, but once the device is turned off, the key is lost. It also notes that the decryption key itself is encrypted by the device pin, meaning an easy pin is an easily decrypted device. This is true for any mobile device, and a good reason to enable a strong ping instead of the default 4 char code seen on most devices.

      What I found curious about the article is that they didn't emphasize this point. Video's of police decrypting a device due to a weak 4 pin character lock within a matter of seconds are available for any number of devices. I am curious how much additional computing power is needed to decrypt a device for each character added to the unlock sequence.

    17. Re:TWO WORDS by DJRumpy · · Score: 2

      Ah, the other link provides that info...

      The iPhone always supported a PIN lock, but the PIN wasn't a deterrent to a serious attacker until the iPhone 3GS. Because those early phones didn't use their hardware to perform encryption, a skilled investigator could hack into the phone, dump its flash memory, and directly access the phone's address book, e-mail messages, and other information. But now, with Apple's more sophisticated approach to encryption, investigators who want to examine data on a phone have to try every possible PIN. Examiners perform these so-called brute-force attacks with special software, because the iPhone can be programmed to wipe itself if the wrong PIN is provided more than 10 times in a row. This software must be run on the iPhone itself, limiting the guessing speed to 80 milliseconds per PIN. Trying all four-digit PINs therefore requires no more than 800 seconds, a little more than 13 minutes. However, if the user chooses a six-digit PIN, the maximum time required would be 22 hours; a nine-digit PIN would require 2.5 years, and a 10-digit pin would take 25 years. That's good enough for most corporate secrets—and probably good enough for most criminals as well.

    18. Re:TWO WORDS by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2

      Except what you're describing is not a false flag operation.

      Of course, but "false flag" sounds so cool!

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    19. Re:TWO WORDS by BoogieChile · · Score: 2

      The FEMA coffins are easy. Do you know how quickly a few hundred thousand dead bodies becomes a major, MAJOR health hazard?

      No need to dream up any New World Order conspiracy theory, either. One large earthquake and tsunami will do just fine.

      Or you could remind yourself that a volcano with the ability to wipe out half of Seattle with less than an hour's warning is considered one of the most dangerous volcanos in the world today.

      Or, for an extra shit and/or giggle, consider the consequences if the 1918 flu strain were to happen again...How many coffins would you suddenly need to find then? Bit late to be placing 50,000 unit orders at that stage of the game...

    20. Re:TWO WORDS by Y-Crate · · Score: 3, Informative

      The same subpoena can't get the data out of RIM actually -- device to device communications are encrypted in such a way that RIM has no access to the contents.

      Yeah, about that...

    21. Re:TWO WORDS by macs4all · · Score: 2

      SSl (256 bit) using 128-bit keys has been cracked for years...

      Citation, please?

      a href="http://www.inet2000.com/public/encryption.htm">These sites beg to differ.

    22. Re:TWO WORDS by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not true. It's absolutely fine to store your data on someone else's server as long as it's encrypted, you have the key and they don't. For example, using tarsnap for backups should not be a problem, because the data is encrypted on the client and uploaded. Someone I know just submitted a PhD thesis on storing data securely on untrusted servers (well, a bit more than just that) and it's quite possible. That doesn't solve the reliability issue, of course, you still have to trust the remote site to stay in business, and to have adequate redundancy and backups. Even that can be addressed by sending your data to multiple providers.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. Now you know for certain by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The iPhone sports a master encryption key and DOJ has access to it.

  14. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wrong.
    It uses full disk encryption. However, that can be circumvented quite easily with a jailbreak (if one exists).

    However, there is a second encryption system. This system derives the keys from your passcode and a key that is stored within a secure element on the iPhone. Thus, you need to know the Passcode of the iPhone in order to decrypt those files. Since, the key derivation function is tied to the passcode and the key within the secure element you cannot offload the brute-force attack to external machines, you need to do it on the iPhone. This means that a brute-force attack on a 4-digit PIN takes about 20 minutes (ok, that's not much), but when you consider complex PINs with 5 or more characters you are soon at 50 days (don't have the exact numbers in my mind right now, but there is a good presentation on that).

    Downturn: You must rely on the app developer to chose the right protection class for the files. If he doesn't then you are down to the rather insecure full-disk-encryption, and you need to chose a longer Passcode...

  15. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    > "As far as I know the iphone doesn't use full disk encryption."

    And because you don't know if it does that means it doesn't, right?

    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4175

    Full device encryption has been available since the 3GS, when they added in hardware encryption support to their iOS products.

    Before speaking on a subject you know absolutely nothing about you should do a little research on it first.

  16. Just ask Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just ask Apple the password they'll give it to you : http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/08/apple-amazon-mat-honan-hacking/all/

  17. Re:It's BS. I can tell you how to crack iphone. by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, totally. I hacked a Gibson with side channel "emmisions" once. I used a Pac-man virus.

    --
    by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
  18. Umm.. what? by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Informative

    5 minutes ago I knew nothing of Apples full disk encryption. Now I find an article that states:

    The release of the iPhone 3GS (and later iPod Touch 3rd Generation) brought hardware-based full disk encryption (FDE) to the iPhone. This was designed to accomplish one thing: instantaneous remote wipe. While the iPhone 3G had to overwrite every bit in flash memory (sometimes taking several hours), disk wiping on the 3GS worked by simply erasing the 256-bit AES key used to encrypt the data.

    Unfortunately, disk encryption on the iPhone did little beyond enabling remote wipe. Mobile forensicator Jonathan Zdziarski found that the iPhone OS automatically decrypts data when a request for data is made, effectively making the encryption worthless for protecting data.

    http://anthonyvance.com/blog/forensics/ios4_data_protection/

    So I'd say I'm just VERY skeptical that the DOJ can't crack something that wasn't really designed with any security in mind in the first place. Either that, or the DOJ has nobody with any skills whatsoever.

    --
    AccountKiller
  19. mod TFS by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TFA and TFS should be modded +5 Funny.
    One suspects that there are back doors all over the iPhone, in addition to the various apps that have access to remarkable amounts of stored material and regularly send it home (or elsewhere). Otherwise its alleged impenetrability would hardly be promoted by law enforcement. It's like Brer Rabbit pleading "please don't throw me in the briar patch".

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:mod TFS by FishOuttaWater · · Score: 2

      Actually, they do sell it in Europe. You can buy them on EBay, but you have to get them converted from PAL to NTSC. ...and it's a bit less classic when you actually watch it again, about as good as So Dear to my Heart.

    2. Re:mod TFS by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      OT, but since song of the south was *banned* by disney, you could only get a copy if you went to where pirates hang out.

      Or, you could, you know, just get the original.

    3. Re:mod TFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OT, but since song of the south was *banned* by disney, you could only get a copy if you went to where pirates hang out.

      it was a great classic movie but disney capitulated to pressure (their own, in fact!) and banned the film.

      uncle remus is not fit for modern audiences. it 'offends their sensibilities'. or something like that.

      oh, btw, FUCK DISNEY.

      Wrong, american audiences are offended. The rest of world is not offended by this B-series film.
      And frankly speaking, if Song of the South is banned, then they should also ban Gone with the Wind and the Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Stupid country, unable to cope rationally with your past.

    4. Re:mod TFS by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is purely anecdotal, but... I was recently on a flight next to a highway patrolman flying back from a conference for computer detectives (my words, not his; I don't remember what the actual job title was). He showed me the modified Ubuntu distro DVD they were passing out - "Look, it has a password cracker!" "Is that John the Ripper?" "You've heard of that?!?" - and we had a pretty nice chat.

      During the conversation, I mentioned that iPhones are encrypted now. I asked, "OK, hypothetically, suppose I'm a mafia drug dealer and you get my encrypted cell phone. How screwed am I?" He said that they'd get a subpoena for my house, show up with a search warrant, and read the backup off my Mac's hard drive, "and then we run this app [opens it to show it to me] and have full access to all your data!" I told him that was pretty impressive, "but... what if I turn on FileVault and encrypt my whole hard drive?" He looked like I'd kicked his puppy and said that most criminals aren't smart enough to do that, but in that case, yeah, there was nothing he could do.

      Feel free to take that with a grain of salt, but I had a detective tell me - in an unguarded two-geeks-talking moment with no apparent motive or visible sign of deceit - that the only way they could recover an encrypted iPhone's contents was through examining the unencrypted backup from an unencrypted hard drive. Now this was a state highway patrol guy and not an NSA analyst, and maybe the higher-up guys have access to emergency use stuff they're not talking about, but my takeaway was that the state-level police really don't have any way to defeat the encryption.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    5. Re:mod TFS by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Now this was a state highway patrol guy and not an NSA analyst, and maybe the higher-up guys have access to emergency use stuff they're not talking about, but my takeaway was that the state-level police really don't have any way to defeat the encryption.

      Without talking about bad implementation (e.g., weak passwords) or side channel attacks (keystroke loggers and the like) it seems exceedingly unlikely that any law enforcement agency would have the ability to defeat modern encryption algorithms. Even if the NSA has such an ability (the math geeks can comment on the likelihood of this) it would be far too valuable to waste on something as mundane as a criminal prosecution. National Security concerns trump the incarceration of child molesters, drug dealers, murderers, and other common criminals.

      Far more interesting than the technical aspect will be the evolution of 5th amendment case law as it relates to encryption. There is no definitive legal precedent in the United States as to whether or not you can be compelled to disclose an encryption password. There have been a few cases that have danced around the edge of this question, but none have directly addressed it, nor have they made it to SCOTUS.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:mod TFS by mark-t · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "....most criminals aren't smart enough to do that"

      I can't seem to help but read that as ".... criminals who are smart enough to do that will probably get away."

    7. Re:mod TFS by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      Exactly. He told me, basically, that the main (only?) side channel attack was getting the unencrypted backup. And yeah, I strongly suspect that if the NSA had the ability to crack AES, it would only be used for situations that you and I would never hear about. The instant it came out in even the most important of public trials, everyone would stop relying on AES about 30 seconds later.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    8. Re:mod TFS by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      I'm not an expert on the iPhone but if you want to talk about encryption in general there are a lot of side channel attacks available to law enforcement. They range from the mundane (a well placed camera with a view of the keyboard) to the relatively sophisticated (hardware keystroke loggers) and very few criminals are going to be proactive enough to protect themselves against such surveillance. Taking it a step further, if one wants to be really paranoid, the only safe way to roll is would be to purchase the computer directly off the retail floor. No mail orders allowed. One would then need to keep physical control over the computer 24/7 to ensure that nobody else has the opportunity to compromise the hardware. If we're willing to shift gears from "paranoid, but still grounded in reality" to "Hollywood", one would also have to be trained and willing to resist rubber hose cryptography.

      The reality of the situation is that cryptography is only as good as the implementation. Having a password with 256 bits-of-entropy is utterly meaningless if you can't control who has physical access to your hardware, or if your hardware leaks potentially compromising information to the outside world (Google "Tempest"). Few people, criminal or otherwise, will ever need to operate at this level of paranoia; it would come into play primarily at the levels of international organized crime, corporate espionage and national security.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:mod TFS by swillden · · Score: 2

      Even if the NSA has such an ability (the math geeks can comment on the likelihood of this)

      I don't personally count as such a math geek, but I know some who do, and the consensus is that, no, the NSA does not. Academic cryptographers who regularly collaborate with NSA cryptographers have the general impression that while it's likely that the NSA knows a number of tricks that academic cryptographers don't, that in many areas the NSA is learning a great deal from published work. In other words, the NSA may still be ahead, but not by that much.

      With that in mind, put yourself in the shoes of the NSA. Suppose that you know that Rijndael is looking likely to be chosen as the Advanced Encryption Standard, and that you know how to break it. Do you shoot it down or allow it to become the standard?

      If you allow it to become the standard, you have to be very, very certain that no one in the world knows the trick that you know that allows you to break it. Now, if your cryptographers are decades ahead of everyone else -- and by that I mean everyone, including the secret agencies of foreign governments as well as all of the public researchers -- then you can do that, and you'll have a powerful tool to peek into whatever gets encrypted with it. Of course, the data you most want to look at won't be encrypted with AES, but oh, well.

      However, for that to make sense you have to have an extremely high degree of certainty that no one else can duplicate your work, because if you're wrong several very bad things can happen. If a foreign spy agency learns to crack AES, they can start reading the files and mail of lots and lots of US companies, which will do untold billions in damage to US economic interests. Remember that the NSA considers the economy to be a national security concern. If criminals learn to crack it, they can steal tremendous amounts of money. Again a big problem. If academic cryptographers crack it then most electronic business must cease until systems can be rebuilt with a new cipher (and that cipher has to be selected!), which will again cost a tremendous amount.

      Weighing the potential damage of a weak cipher against the potential advantage of a weak cipher that no one knows is weak comes down pretty heavily against allowing US companies to use a weak cipher unless the NSA has an unbelievably huge advantage over the rest of the world in cryptanalysis and has some reason to know they really do have that much of an advantage.

      So the consensus is that there's no way the NSA is that far ahead, and really no way they're ballsy enough even if they are that far ahead, to support wide dependence by US companies on a cipher they know to be weak. Ergo, they can't break AES.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  20. Nicely done, but lacking in subtlety. by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

    I look forward to Ovie Carroll's next few breathless announcements:

    "Hooh, boy, that YouTube is soooo secure, a person could sign up for an account using their real name and home address, then post videos of them committing crimes online and law enforcement would never ever be able to track them! Honest!"

    "You know where the safest place to hide stuff is? Underneath the welcome mat at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW in Washington, DC. Really! We did a study and figured out that once that mat is pushed down on top of something, whether it's drugs, cash or big file folders full of industrial secrets, there's NO way that any one can get into it."

    "My biggest nightmare is someone committing a crime, then emailing a detailed confession to ovie.carroll@usdoj.gov. Once something gets into those email tubes it's IMPOSSIBLE to get it back out and figure out what happened. Really. You can trust me. I'm with the government."

  21. Re:I don't believe it by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to TFA, encryption and decryption is now available and built in in the hardware even. So it's become computationally cheap. The AES key is also burned in silicon, making it impossible to get to.

    But as usual the weakest link is the user's password, in this case a PIN. A typical 4-digit PIN can be cracked (using special software to prevent phone from wiping itself after ten failed attempts) in a matter of minutes; one needs an 8-digit PIN to be reasonably secure (average 15 years for a brute-force attack).

  22. Re:I don't believe it by jittles · · Score: 2

    This is only if you have a passcode on the device. Not to mention that you need to encrypt your backups, or they can just pull your iPhone's data right off your iTunes backup.

  23. Re:I don't believe it by jittles · · Score: 2

    As I have commented above, this is only the case when you have a passcode enabled. And your files are not encrypted in backups, either. Plus when your phone is unlocked, any exploit that allows you to leave the sandbox would let you access any encrypted files. This means that if that one company still has the software that breaks the iPhone's passcode by using a USB bruteforce (bypassing the lock screen's security), you're out of luck!

  24. Easy by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Funny

    DOJ Says iPhone Is So Secure They Can't Crack It

    I dropped mine off the balcony to the pavement below. It seems that it is very easy to crack an iPhone.

    1. Re:Easy by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're just not holding it the right way.

  25. Re:I don't believe it by mshenrick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unlike Android (when enabled), it doesn't prompt for the key before booting the OS, so it's only partly encrypted. Yes the OS is mounted read only on iOS (as on Android by default) jailbreaking changes this, as does rooting, but you can't if it's fully encrypted

  26. Can't crack an iPhone... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now that's funny. I can shatter mine.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  27. Re:Umm.. what? by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

    Either that, or the DOJ has nobody with any skills whatsoever.

    Or they'd like criminals to believethat they can't pull data from an iPhone.

    Or, they're cops and they don't want to have to go through the bother of getting a warrant when the phone is 'obviously in plain sight and thus immune to the regular rules of search and siezure'.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  28. Re:I don't believe it by Art+Challenor · · Score: 2

    You're impressed, that he's too lazy?

  29. Re:I don't believe it by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you don't have a passcode enabled on the device then there's not much point in encrypting it, is there?

  30. encryption laws by Sebastopol · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can somebody explain how if the iPhone is so uncrackable/breakable that Apple can still export it? I seem to recall some kind of PGP problem where exporting something that was too secure was a violation of US laws. Or maybe I'm mixing reality with a bad Nicholas Cage movie, which is entirely possible.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:encryption laws by PPH · · Score: 2

      Old news. They eased up on encryption export restrictions years ago. It was driving all the encryption R&D overseas where our gov't had even less control over it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  31. Re:Umm.. what? by Vellmont · · Score: 2

    And you haven't exactly disputed the article either. Just because it's 2 years old doesn't mean it's not accurate.

    I have several IOS devices, and the only "password" you can put into it is the simple 4 character unlock code. You should certainly know that all encryption is based on keeping something secret that's very difficult to guess. If the only secret you're keeping is a 4 digit key, you're completely hosed to brute force attacks.

    --
    AccountKiller
  32. What if they had said it was easily crackable? by Brannon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    would that still be a misdirection?

    Oh, I see, anything which is said in favor of iPhone security is "reverse psychology", anything critical of iPhone security is "speaking truth to power".

    You guys crack me up.

  33. Re:I don't believe it by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's because the password-protected encryption doesn't encrypt the whole disk. It encrypts individual files. There is a full-disk encryption key, but its purpose is to make wiping the device a single block write operation (overwrite the key) instead of a complete wipe of tens of gigabytes.

    --

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

  34. Re:That's Odd by KingMotley · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought all you had to do was use a little social engineering and you can do what you want with the data. /ducks

    Worked for Tasha Yar, anyhow.

  35. And also, they said they weren't lying. by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Funny

    So we know it's true.

  36. Re:Umm.. what? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Informative


    Last time I checked, the government can't lie. It can only deny.

    Sorry, incorrect. Go watch "Don't talk to police" on YouTube. Required viewing for US residency.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  37. Re:I don't believe it by filthpickle · · Score: 2

    Objection!

  38. Political Correctness Censorship... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wrong, american audiences are offended. The rest of world is not offended by this B-series film. And frankly speaking, if Song of the South is banned, then they should also ban Gone with the Wind and the Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Stupid country, unable to cope rationally with your past.

    Amen!

    In the US, this is another example of political correctness gone overboard.

    What the old saying about people not learning from mistakes in the past are bound to repeat them in the future?

    Then again...look at Germany, banning most anything Nazi connected....I believe similar type bans happen in other EU countries too?

    But seriously....this is a part of US history, and should not be suppressed. I remember seeing old Bugs Bunny cartoons...people got blown up into 'blackface'....if they even show these episodes on tv, these parts are usually edited...

    Why? This is part of history, and people should know what attitudes were publicly held and presented to see how much we've changed over the years.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Political Correctness Censorship... by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 2

      Bugs Bunny cartoons are edited because blackface shouldn't be considered entertaining anymore.

      Uh, let me get this straight. An explosion happens in a cartoon and instead of being injured, maimed, or killed the character has his face covered in soot. This is racist? How?

    2. Re:Political Correctness Censorship... by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why? This is part of history, and people should know what attitudes were publicly held and presented to see how much we've changed over the years.

      We haven't changed over the years. Those attitudes are still common, but they are no longer publicized. So, by self-censoring itself in public, Disney is accurately reflecting racial attitudes in American society.

      So, is Disney to teach us about history? Or the present?

    3. Re:Political Correctness Censorship... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      No, he means that, collectively speaking, we wish to live in a society where making fun of people based on their race isn't funny anymore.

      I don't see anything wrong with that type of humor....we all have stuff about us that is funny about us.

      I suppose that it is only ok today..to make fun of white guys, I mean, they're the only ones portrayed as dufusses on commercials and sitcoms these days...

      People..get over it...we all have stuff funny about us..Whites, Blacks, Orientals, Hispanics...etc...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Political Correctness Censorship... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 2

      Speak for yourself. The more ways we have to make fun of each other, the better, IMHO. As a person of color (pink),I don't find honkey jokes funny, but I wouldn't deny them to those who do.

    5. Re:Political Correctness Censorship... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 2

      Any child that had seen an old minstrel show could connect the dots. I suspect the number of such children is in the dozens.

  39. Re:Umm.. what? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 2

    LOL Thanks, that was great!

    I'm pretty sure the government can only lie. Maybe you are thinking of some government other than the U.S. government?

  40. Re:I don't believe it by TheLandyman · · Score: 2

    I'm always logged in as root. I like to live dangerously.

  41. Re:Rubbish by Kalriath · · Score: 2

    The settlers discovered immortality? Hmm, so that's why everyone goes to Australia.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  42. Re:Adults should, maybe... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

    The problem is that those shows were made for children, and broadcasting them now means that some number of children, especially younger children, are going to see them (probably over and over, if the parents DVR them). And the last thing we should be doing is broadcasting cartoons with racist jokes in them to those children.

    You know...myself and anyone my age..grew up with those cartoons...and somehow...we're not all damaged....why would todays kids be any different...are they more stupid now and need to be protected somehow?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  43. Link by cultiv8 · · Score: 2
    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
  44. Scare tactics. by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Okay, can't watch the youtube video(blocked due to limited bandwidth here), but it let me onto the infowars site.

    750M rounds is 2.5 rounds per person in the USA, yes. However: Scare tactics are being used.

    First, it's for training ammunition - my training/qualification for the year is at well over 500 rounds between pistol and rifle(~half each). I'm not DHS, but it should be a clue as to how many rounds it takes to train&qualify somebody. It's often an annual requirement.

    Second - it's a 'purchase UP TO' order, up to 70M rounds/year, between all winning parties, for a 5 year contract. NOT 'planning to buy 750M rounds of ammo'. Going by the contract, that's a MAX of 350M. The minimum order in a year is 1 lot of 1k rounds. In these sorts of contracts they list the maximum possible they expect for each item - for example, a big purchase of .40S&W handguns, a shift to .357 Sig, whatever. .223 is well represented, though I wonder that they aren't shooting NATO 5.56 spec rifles(the difference is about a human hair; doesn't matter much in training I guess). Going by my figure, a max order of 70M rounds would let you dual-qualify ~140k people. Office types trained 'just in case' would use a bit less ammo, SWAT types far more. A quick search shows 160k employees in DHS. Or maybe it's 188k employees AND 200k contractors. Whatever. I doubt they're going to be qualifying EVERYONE anytime soon, and probably don't plan to short of some crazy doomsday scenarios.

    Third - "including 357 mag rounds that are able to penetrate walls." - just about ANY handgun self defense caliber is fully capable of penetrating a wall while remaining potentially lethal. It's a simple fact that a human body, which self defense rounds generally have to be able to completely penetrate to be considered effective, is more difficult to penetrate than 2 sheets of drywall. You want to go back to yea old days - when the .357 was developed, the standard was actually penetrating a car windscreen with a maximum deflection such that you'd still hit the driver. 9mm, btw, is 'normally' powerful enough for this, though you might need 2 shots(not as big of a deal for a semi), but this was back when we were still issuing revolvers to police. While we're at it, the contract also lists rifle calibers - .223, .30-06, and .308; all far more powerful than .357.

    In other words, it's a big hoopla over just about nothing.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  45. Re:I don't believe it by pla · · Score: 2

    This means that a brute-force attack on a 4-digit PIN takes about 20 minutes (ok, that's not much), but when you consider complex PINs with 5 or more characters you are soon at 50 days (don't have the exact numbers in my mind right now, but there is a good presentation on that).

    Er, no. It means you make a copy of the flash storage, and brute-force it on a "real" computer in a matter of milliseconds.

  46. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion