FBI Denies It Held iPhone UDIDs Stolen By AntiSec

judgecorp writes "The FBI has denied the UDID codes released yesterday came from an agent's laptop, as claimed by the AntiSec hacker group. The FBI says it does not hold such data, and the attack never happened. However, the agent named by AntiSec is real, and some of the published UDID codes have been found to be genuine. So where did they come from?"

Comments

So where did they come from?

[fustakrakich]

The FBI... What, does anybody expect them to admit it?

Re:So where did they come from?

[Sarten-X]

On the other hand, finding the names of agents is pretty easy, and dropping one makes for a much juicier story than "AntiSec managed to get a UDID-sniffing trojan into the app store".

In the absence of any further evidence, I must assume that everybody's lying. The real story is that the UDIDs were harvested wirelessly using petahertz radio scanners mounted on the invisible black helicopters flown by the lizard aliens who, due to their shared ancestry with birds, make excellent pilots, even in aircraft that are based on Martian stealth technology (which is why we're giving the Martians our nuclear-powered cars now).

Re:So where did they come from?

[crazyjj]

Wouldn't it be nice to think the FBI would ever release a press release with the header "Yes, We Screwed-Up and Yes, We're Illegally Spying on You." But inevitably, that's the kind of admission that only comes out decades after the fact. It's not like if you had asked J. Edgar Hoover "Hey are you spying on Martin Luther King with illegal wiretaps and recording devices?" back in the 60's he would have replied "Oh yeah, we're doing that."

Re:So where did they come from?

[falcon5768]

Only people foolish enough to think antisec actually cares about being truthful would think that. Lets face the facts here

12 million is a piss in the pond in terms of iOS UDID codes. Its less than half the iPhones sold LAST QUARTER. If the FBI was realistically trying to build a database of them, there is no way at this point they would ONLY have 12 Million.

12 million is more easily explained by being leaked from a developer, as up until half a year ago, developers were using the code to identify individual iPhones for various reasons like automatic sign-in to certain services like some of the multiplayer game services. Apple banned them from using it though half a year ago so at this point there was no reason to keep.

The data it's self was incomplete. Some had legit names and addresses while most were just a ID code. If this was from a official source then there would have been a lot more data on most of these. On the otherhand if it was stolen from a developer who let users opt out of giving their information but used the code for autologin purposes, then there would be clear reason why most of the data has no user info attached.

Antisec is still smarting from getting much of its higher ranking leadership arrested from a FBI plant

So really there is no reason AT ALL to believe antisec's claims that they stole the info. There is however a lot more reason to suspect they were trying to stir the pot in the tech community by stoking already present fears of FBI spying which they did a pretty good job at. It gets clueless script kiddies riled up and makes them look cool. Sure the FBI can be shady, but of the law enforcement agencies out there I would honestly have to say they are the least shady of the bunch and tend to release information without bending the truth too much, even when it has the possibility of embarrassing them. Not saying they ALWAYS do it, just saying they tend to be more forthcoming than other government agencies.

Re:So where did they come from?

[crazyjj]

In the absence of any further evidence, I must assume that everybody's lying.

Except that Anon has real evidence in this case, and specifics. The FBI is just issuing a blanket denial. And, for that matter, if this agent is real and doesn't do this, why aren't they hiding him and not making him available for interviews? Seems like he would be the most credible source to deny it.

Re:So where did they come from?

[NatasRevol]

Or they could have hacked some small developer who wasn't overly careful with his records and AntiSec ended up with a few real UDIDs.
Then blamed it on the FBI.

Or they could have hacked an FBI laptop, just the one that had Apple UDIDs on it.

I have no idea, but I have heard of Occam's Razor.

Re:So where did they come from?

[tmosley]

Wow, a time traveler has come to us from some time before 9/11/2001. Tell me, friend, what is it like to live in a free society? It has been so long I have forgotten.

Re:So where did they come from?

[Sarten-X]

I have a few agent business cards in my desk at home. I could claim any one of them gave me a receipt that proves Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence. I could show you a receipt dated November 22, 1963. The agent I name could deny it, of course, but then his denial could just as easily be dismissed as "protecting his job" or some other obvious ploy.

Anon has shown only that they:

1. have UDIDs, some of which are valid
2. have the name of an FBI agent

There is no evidence that the UDIDs actually came from the FBI. There is no evidence that Special Agent Stangl is related to the case in anything but name, and any statement from him must be considered questionable, just as any statement from Anonymous must also be questionable.

As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and there is very little actual proof available... just names and numbers mentioned in close proximity.

Re:So where did they come from?

[fadethepolice]

This is likely to be true of every action of every whistleblower from now until the end of time. The very act of getting protected data from an organization by definition results in this situation. The only resort is to look at context and evaluate the information on the knowledge you have of the participants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NarusInsight The FBI has a proven track record of secretly monitoring Americans for close to 100 years. Anonymous has a decent reputation as occasionally competent hackers. Given these facts I would tend to give more weight to the evidence presented by anonymous than the denials by the FBI.

Re:So where did they come from?

[crakbone]

Only problem is that Anon has a better record of telling the truth.

Re:So where did they come from?

[zzsmirkzz]

Only problem is that Anon has a better record of telling the truth.

A nameless, faceless, identity that anyone can assume at any time, by definition, does not have a record .

Re:So where did they come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

on average random ACs have a better rate of telling the truth than the FBI. (this post included?)

Re:So where did they come from?

[blueg3]

...finding the names of agents is pretty easy...

Yeah, especially when the agent stated his name in a well-known FBI PR video targeting hackers.

Collection != leak

[AwaxSlashdot]

There are 3 issues here:
* who collected them ? (most probably an app)
* who "lost" them ? (AntiSec claim they found it on a FBI agent laptop they compromised)
* how the data went from #1 to #2 ?

And the 3rd one is the most interesting.

Possibilities...

[Severus Snape]

1. AntiSec is lying.
2. FBI is lying.
3. AntiSec is telling the truth and the FBI's methods of obtaining the UDID codes means they can't admit to it.

Re:Possibilities...

[jfdavis668]

Another option, AntiSec hacked someone pretending to be an FBI agent. I have run across people like this, who are trying to con you or just getting their jollies.

Misleading headline.

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA: "At this time there is no evidence indicating that an FBI laptop was compromised or that the FBI either sought or obtained this data"

Saying there's no evidence isn't the same as saying it didn't happen.

Re:Misleading headline.

[crazyjj]

Yeah, anytime you're dealing with a government press release or statement you have to CAREFULLY parse the language. These things are carefully crafted to imply things they don't actually say. "I personally have no knowledge of such an event happening" is NOT the same as saying "This event didn't happen." There are a million ways to imply things without saying them, and a dumb and gullible press will usually swallow them hook-line-and-sinker 99% of the time.

Re:Which is more likely

[Gaygirlie]

Laptops are being lost all the god damn time and Anon is a very, very large group of people -- I'd say the chances are actually darn good. Also, I'd say the chances are darn good for FBI to lie whenever something like this happens, just for the sake of looking good in the eyes of the general public and for painting anyone who disagrees in bad light.

As for unverifiability: apparently some of those UDIDs have already been verified.

This sort of fits...

[Revotron]

...with the general attitude I saw from Slashdot regarding the original story. It almost sounds like a complete fake just because what the hell would the FBI possibly do with a deprecated SHA1 hash of a few device-unique identifiers? Verify that their super-secret gub'mint database of everyone's iPhone MAC addresses and MEIDs has no row errors?

It's worth reiterating from the other story that Apple doesn't even accept apps that reference the UDID any more, and it was never used as a security or authentication feature in the first place. It's like saying "lol, you got pwned, I just got the MD5 hash of your entire hard drive, LULZ LULZ LULZ WE ARE ANON"

If the FBI really wanted some useful information, they could swipe your ESN/MEID and track you down to a cellular level. Hell, they probably already have. Smile at the camera!

So where does that assumption get you?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI are lying about it not being theirs and ANON are lying it about it being theirs.

Is this some sort of Schroedinger's laptop?

Re:So where does that assumption get you?

[jythie]

I do not know how.. I do not know when... I do not even know why.. but I will find and excuse to use the phrase 'Schroedinger's Laptop' someday.

Re:So where does that assumption get you?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Is this some sort of Schroedinger's laptop?

I had one of those about 12 years ago - a Dell Inspiron 3800. At any given moment you wouldn't know whether it was going to work or not until you tried to turn it on.

Re:I hate to be the one to say this...

[PRMan]

Exactly. Anonymous and Antisec have seemingly been completely honest in the past, when it comes to claiming responsibility for hacks. The FBI is known to lie and cover up. Given past experience, Antisec is more likely to be telling the truth.

File name instructive

[Anonymous Coward]

"NCFTA_iOS_devices_intel.csv'

National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance(1) is that FBI-sponsored industry cybersecurity PR, lobbying, and info-sharing consortium that was going to replace CERT et al, make sure the Bureau's position on cybersecurity was advanced, and pass out a lot of white hats to all the "Walker, Cyber Ranger"s out there. Stangl (sic) apparently may have some role there. As others have pointed out, the data could have come directly from Apple.

So maybe the Fibbies are *technically* truthful here. It's called plausible deniability. That's why you have captive shadow orgs like NCFTA, ostensibly not taxpayer funded. Congress won't oblige your agency's agenda or funding? Just set up a non-profit org. They can do things you can't. Welcome to "continuity of government", though this process is now largely a quaint and unneccessary anachronism in a post PATRIOT, post DMCA, post NDAA, executive order, UN Treaty, Homeland Security world. That kind of deceptive charm may be it's only lingering utility, in fact. Sugar-coating and Cosmetics are big business, after all.

(1) http://yro.slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=NCFTA

Re:Ya no shit

[HiThere]

I wish I could believe that. Unfortunately, the government generally, and law enforcement officials more specificly, have a WORSE track record for telling the truth than does J. Random Hacker.

If I go strictly by probabilities, I'd believe Antisec. But I happen to feel that it's OK to remain undecided.

P.S.: Saying "Antisec needs to provide more proof" is not reasonable. If they have tapped something, an incomplete result is to be expected. (I.e., if they intercepted communications in process rather than hacking the computer.) Saying that you won't believe then would be a bit better, but without expressing what additional evidence would convince you, not much better.

For that matter, I'm not sure what either side could do to convince me that they were telling the truth, but I don't count a simple assertion as worth even considering. Especially not from the govt., which has a horrible track record of lying even when the truth would be to its advantage.

I'd proof this better, but the combination of slashcode with firefox makes proofreading a painful process.