Slashdot Mirror


Want to Keep Messages From the Feds? Use iMessage

According to an report at CNET, "Encryption used in Apple's iMessage chat service has stymied attempts by federal drug enforcement agents to eavesdrop on suspects' conversations, an internal government document reveals. An internal Drug Enforcement Administration document seen by CNET discusses a February 2013 criminal investigation and warns that because of the use of encryption, 'it is impossible to intercept iMessages between two Apple devices' even with a court order approved by a federal judge." The article goes on to talk about ways in which the U.S. government is pressuring companies to leave peepholes for law enforcement in just such apps, and provides some insight into why the proprietary iMessage is (but might not always be) a problem for eavesdroppers, even ones with badges. Adds reader adeelarshad82, "It turns out that encryption is only half of the problem while the real issue lies in the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act which was passed in 1994.

23 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm... by T-Bucket · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I had just figured out how to eavesdrop on imessages, this is JUST the sort of thing I would make public....

  2. A state where police work is easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... is also known as a "police state."

    1. Re:A state where police work is easy... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hi, let me introduce you to the Patriot Act.

  3. Easy Police Work is not a Constitutional Right by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A security hole left open for the good guys is also a security hole left open for the bad guys.

    1. Re:Easy Police Work is not a Constitutional Right by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And "law enforcement" can be either.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  4. Hipsters attack the USA. by concealment · · Score: 3, Funny

    When I see terrorists in skinny jeans, ironic tshirts and wayfarers, on their iPhones plotting the demise of the Great Satan, then I'll worry.

  5. Re::D by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey, I'd like to buy some of those drugs. Hit me up on iMessage at 407-TOTALLY-NOT-A-COP.

    --

    Long signatures suck.
  6. Sadly, no... by nweaver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    iMessage keeps messages secret from the carrier, but it can't keep the messages secret from the feds.

    Apple has to be able to know the user's private key to allow them to log in new devices, at least when the user logs into Apple using their Apple password. And therefore, with a warrant, so can the police.

    Now Apple could use a technique where your password is hashed one way to create your iMessage key, and hashed a different way to be sent to Apple for logging in. But this doen't seem likely, as a login to iCloud (using a user's apple Password) on the web interface sends the password to Apple where its hashed on their end for login validation. So unless the iPhone/Mac iCloud login uses a different technique, Apple must (at a minimum) be able to access the user's iMessage key when the user logs into Apple.

    And its far more likely that Apple (and therefore the police with a search warrant) can get the user's iMessage key whenever they want.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
  7. Again.... by Waveguide04 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    PGP all over again. BAN it, it must be evil! How could someone expect to talk to their friends and family without being in the clear for anyone to see. The nerve.

  8. Seriously now by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you believe, even for a second, that the feds can't read iMessages, you are just the deathstick dealer they are looking for.

    Y'all know about this, right?

    Here a money quote from an article in Wired:

    the NSA made an enormous breakthrough several years ago in its ability to cryptanalyze, or break, unfathomably complex encryption systems employed by not only governments around the world but also many average computer users in the US

    Yeah... that really fits in perfectly with "can't read iMessages", lol.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Seriously now by Old97 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technology available to intelligence agencies like NSA is not always made available to law enforcement.

      --
      Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
    2. Re:Seriously now by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It depends on what the meanings of 'enormous breakthrough' and 'unfathomably complex encryption systems' are in this context. I'm sure they can crack encryption much faster with a supercomputer than we can with a nice desktop, but that's not really going to make a difference.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Seriously now by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technology available to intelligence agencies like NSA is not always made available to law enforcement.

      Exactly, if the NSA does have the ability to crack encryption thought to be uncrackable by the rest of the world, there's no way they'd let that ability be used for any public law enforcement cases -- they'd keep it closely guarded and would only use it for top-secret intelligence gathering.

    4. Re:Seriously now by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oy. That's not how it works. An encrypted message contains something unknown. Any particular spending required to break it occurs prior to knowing what's in it. Once spent, then they know -- and since they *already* spent to break it, there's no need to make any further finance based decisions. If the message contains something they think is of interest, it'll go off to the people who might like to know about it without any particular commentary. This is how it works -- I'm not guessing. Not by some magical choosing of which messages to break because they know what's in them.

      The entire point of any sub rosa organization, be it religious extremists, home grown anarchist bombers, counterfeiters, drug dealers or agents of snooping nations is that they are trying to operate in such a way as to look innocent. So encrypted messages from otherwise innocent looking parties aren't presumed innocent. For that matter, unencrypted messages aren't presumed innocent. This isn't speculation; this is the reality of it. The computers look at everything and if it looks like it's something of interest, it gets kicked upwards.

      As for the prior AC, if you assume they haven't cracked anything in particular, you're making a serious mistake. One they'd very much like you to make.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    5. Re:Seriously now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      None of which stops them from calling your LEO's office and saying, "Hi, this is your federal government; Joe Palooka, address such and such, is dealing drugs." Or whatever. At which juncture, you are now a POGI. The point is, your secrets... aren't.

      Yes of course, but you have to JIYE the YTSARD or who's going to GJS the KSDYI?

    6. Re:Seriously now by rhekman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While nothing technical is stopping an intelligence agency from passing on criminal tips to LEOs, there are legal road blocks to doing so. At least in the U.S. there are supposed to be restrictions on federal agencies spying on private citizens. More importantly though, our federal Constitution, state laws, and over 900 years of English common-law heritage guarantee one's right to face your accuser. Unless the originating agency can prove where and how they intercepted some communication, and it wasn't obtained as part of an unreasonable search or seizure, any such evidence is "fruit of the poisoned tree".

      --
      I like teamwork. It's easier to assign blame that way.
    7. Re:Seriously now by camperdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's Sheriff Buford T. Justice, not Justice T. Sheriff.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  9. Jitsi, Retroshare by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't rely on closed source to keep your secrets. Since we can't verify that the Feds haven't pressured Apple into giving them a back door, we have to assume they have. The article here could easily be propaganda encouraging people to use compromised software.

    Use something like Jitsi or Retroshare if you care about your privacy. Anything else should be considered the equivalent of standing on the street corner with a megaphone.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  10. not just iPhone... by lamber45 · · Score: 3, Informative

    On the Android platform, there are third-party, open-source apps available for encrypted voice and SMS. Those are just the ones I'm familiar with; there may be others.

  11. Re:I don't even... by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    Judges are so 20th Century.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Encryption is Freedom by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know you think you're protecting your rights, but it doesn't mean you aren't facilitating trafficking meth, heroin or the next big thing in soma-jolting chemistry when you advocate for an untappable form of communication.

    Or facilitating free speech in places where saying the wrong thing leads to torture and imprisonment or worse. There will always be illegal things, but the greater right to free secure speech, I believe, takes precedence over stopping drugs / child porn / cause of the decade.

    Your right to privacy is actually a proscription against unreasonable use of governmental power. It's not absolute, and it's not guaranteed the 'evil corporation' we all like to whine and bitch about shouldn't be subject to compliance for such measures as reasonable surveillance.

    You means the government that retroactively gives itself powers to invade our rights? There's not much checks-and-balances going on in America.

    I don't like assuming that there's an unfriendly, obtrusive ear, eye or nose pressed to my privates either, but there are bigger evils out there than the DEA.

    So you're of the opinion that if one has done nothing wrong, one has nothing to hide. How can you enjoy your bread and circuses when your head is buried in the sand?

  13. Creator of PGP Has Already Fixed This by FsG · · Score: 4, Interesting

    PGP Creator Phil Zimmerman has a new business, Silent Circle, that does proper encryption for voice and SMS on mobile devices.

    --
    I made a PHP/MySQL library that prevents SQL injection & makes coding easier!
  14. Assumptions by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. That the feds are going to spend the resources, which even with the breakthrough is unlikely to be trivial, to crack random suspected drug dealer's communications.
    2. That they're going to risk the very knowledge that they have the capability to slip out
    3. That they aren't the ones dealing the drugs in the first place
    4. That they're going to bother to send in a tip when they're busy with country scale espionage.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right