Slashdot Mirror


FBI Delays Case Against Apple; May Have Way To Break Phone (threatpost.com)

msm1267 writes: The FBI has delayed its case against Apple less than a day before a scheduled court hearing and showdown over its demands that Apple help unlock a terrorist's iPhone. The government late Monday afternoon filed a motion to vacate its case, putting a halt to a saga that began in mid-February when a federal magistrate ordered Apple to help the FBI access a phone belonging to one of the shooters involved in last December's attack that killed 14 in San Bernardino, Calif.

The motion also indicates that the FBI may have found a way onto the phone without Apple's help. "On Sunday, March 20, 2016, an outside party demonstrated to the FBI a possible method for unlocking [shooter Syed] Farook's iPhone," the motion says. "Testing is required to determine whether it is a viable method that will not compromise data on Farook's iPhone. If the method is viable, it should eliminate the need for the assistance from Apple Inc. ("Apple") set forth in the All Writs Act Order in this case."
Update 3/22/16 at 01:05:00 GMT: The story was updated to reflect the correct information that the case was delayed, not dropped. A federal judge agreed to postpone the oral arguments between Apple and the U.S. government.

8 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Nice way to try and destroy Apple's image by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Informative

    The US Government knows that Apple has made encryption a cornerstone of their product strategy in order to protect their international sales in our post-Snowden era (in other words, to protect the world from the US Government). What better way to hit back at Apple for their lack of cooperation than to strike at the heart of Apple's strategy.

  2. Not dropped by maitai · · Score: 4, Informative

    The FBI didn't drop the case. They asked for and got a continuance until April 5th.

  3. Re: Something is not right here.... by maitai · · Score: 4, Informative

    They didn't drop it. They got a continuance until April 5th to see if they can actually get into the phone themselves. Article is really way off.

  4. The Problem is Cracking the Times Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You don't have to break the encryption if you can subvert the code that counts the number of attempts, that could easily be done by altering one of the cpu instructions in the silicon or disabling it.. basically a brute force attack on the silicon. Another way would be to replace the CPU with a custom emulator of the CPU which could step around the sequence for destruction.. or simpler.. multiply the number of times by an arbitrarily chosen "factor".. or reset it to zero after each attempt.

  5. Re:Something is not right here.... by whipslash · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes you're right. Story updated.

  6. Re: DOJ did not want precedent from a loss in cour by mick129 · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    Move along, no sig to see here.
  7. Re:Last we will hear of that.... by brantondaveperson · · Score: 4, Informative

    You have your facts a bit wrong. Apple have stated it is possible to create software to break into its phones, but that doing so would a significant undertaking, and would compromise the security of their products. This is a perfectly fair position for them to take, and is backed up by all the facts that are available. At no point has anyone said that the iPhone 5C is "unbreakable". Never.

    What people have said, however, and this is correct as far as anyone knows - there's no reason to doubt it - is that a newer iPhone with a strong passphrase is unbreakable for all practical purposes. A new iPhone with a 4-digit pin is breakable only with a special software release that can only be signed by Apple, just like the 5C. But, an iPhone 5C does not have the security baked right into the silicon, and so if you can dump all of the flash, you can brute force the PIN.

    Also, the FBI has not yet broken into the phone without Apple's help. They still have to determine whether or not the method words, and rather importantly, whether or not doing so would compromise the admissibility of any evidence gathered.

  8. Re: DOJ did not want precedent from a loss in cour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not cancelled. They got a continuance. Kind of different.