FBI Hires Cellebrite To Crack San Bernadino iPhone (reuters.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Hires Cellebrite To Crack San Bernadino iPhone (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @08:54AM from the who-needs-Apple-anyway dept.

tlhIngan writes: Earlier this week, the FBI asked the court for a continuance so it could do some research into a proposed method of cracking the [iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino, California shooters]. It turns out the FBI has contracted Cellebrite for $15,000 to break into the phone. Cellebrite is an Israeli software provider specializing in mobile phone forensics software. If they succeed, it would mean Apple would no longer need to be involved.

136 of 237 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Joe_Dragon · 2016-03-23 08:55 · Score: 5, Funny

apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them. Now will they be that much of a dick?
1. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  I would LOVE to see that
  But I know how it would go, laws are only for we common folk
2. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by imatter · 2016-03-23 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  would that be an internal affairs issue?
3. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Lumpy · 2016-03-23 09:18 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I for one hope so. The DMCA is a piece of shit legislation, and if apple uses it it will be the only time it is used properly. to poke a stick in the eye of government goons.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
4. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by wardrich86 · 2016-03-23 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has been pushing pretty hard to keep their shit on lock-down. This is probably the best chance we've seen so far at this ever possibly happening.
5. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by SeaFox · 2016-03-23 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  But Celebrite is the one cracking the phone. Would an Israeli company be punishable under the DMCA?
6. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by silas_moeckel · 2016-03-23 09:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Have fun with that. THEM Hey FBI can ya get me a court order to do this? FBI Sure here ya go. The judge said I could is a rather good defence for a civil issue.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
7. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by shawn2772 · 2016-03-23 09:33 · Score: 2
  
  apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them.
  You think? The DMCA does try to ban circumvention of security measures that are used to protect copyright, but I don't think that's the case here. The DMCA doesn't ban general breaking of security.
8. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Joe_Dragon · 2016-03-23 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  apple can say that by hacking the system people can get apps / moves / music / etc for free from the app store or use this to by pass the DRM and get the files out with them being DRM locked.
9. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by david_thornley · 2016-03-23 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  So, what would you like a changed DMCA to be like? Should host sites be legally liable for user-supplied content, which means they wouldn't dare use any? Should copyright holders be unable to challenge mass infringements of their copyright? Please explain.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
10. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Solandri · 2016-03-23 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  You don't want that. The DMCA prevents bypassing encryption to violate copyright. Since the phone belongs to the San Bernardino County government, the copyright for whatever is stored on there belongs to them. So there's no copyright violation. (Or more precisely, since they're a government agency, there is no copyright. Whatever they recover from the phone could be obtained by anyone with a FOIA request.)
  
  If you argue it's somehow violating Apple's copyright, you're essentially saying Apple holds the copyright for everything stored on your iPhone. That is a precedent, much, much worse than what the FBI is trying to do. Basically you'd be saying the copyright for everything you're storing on Facebook, Google, Dropbox, Amazon S3, etc. belongs to those respective companies instead of to you.
11. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  The primary complaint seems to be the lack of a burden of proof to get something taken down, along with a lack of effective penalties for takedown notices issued in bad faith.
12. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Sneftel · 2016-03-23 10:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Cute, but no. Sayeth the DMCA:
  
  Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government
  Activities.--This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized
  investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence
  activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a
  State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting
  pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political
  subdivision of a State..
  
  --
  The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
13. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Sneftel · 2016-03-23 10:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Cute, but no. Sayeth the DMCA:
  
  Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government
  Activities.--This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized
  investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence
  activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a
  State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting
  pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political
  subdivision of a State..
  
  --
  The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
14. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Sneftel · 2016-03-23 10:07 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Whoops, meant to reply to the grandparent post. Though I guess it works here too.
  
  --
  The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
15. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by jofas · 2016-03-23 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Cellebrite has an American arm and is already the de facto forensics software for law enforcement in us and Canada.
16. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by lgw · 2016-03-23 10:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Neither side requires burden of proof at the beginning.
  The "conversation" goes like this:
  Content owner: "this looks like ours, service please take it down" /takes it down
  Uploader: "no, this is mine. YouTube , please put it back up" /restores content.
  Sadly, the conversation actually goes like this:
  Content owner's bot: "this looks like ours, YouTube please take it down"
  YouTube bot: takes it down
  YouTube bot: all revenue from your channel now goes to Content owner
  YouTube bot: copyright strike against you, you can't upload a video over 15 minutes
  Uploader: "no, this is mine. YouTube, please put it back up"
  Uploader, a week later: "Heloooo! YouTube?! Is there anyone there?! I filled out all your forms, but nothing happened"
  Uploader, a month later: "Do any actual humans work at Google? "
  Uploader eventually dies of old age
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
17. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by mark-t · 2016-03-23 10:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It wouldn't matter, 17 U.S. Code S 1201 SS e covers that:
  
  This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
18. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by mysidia · 2016-03-23 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  The DMCA does try to ban circumvention of security measures that are used to protect copyright, but I don't think that's the case here.
  The DRM effectively prevents access to the firmware binary code.... note that in no case can a normal user get access to the firmware code, let alone see it and patch it; without circumventing effective controls.
  Modifying the code in memory is also an exercise of the copyright owner's exclusive right to prepare derivative works.
19. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Simple - egregious instant penalties for any false take down notice. Perhaps extending to inability to defend ANY copyrights or prevent making DMCA like requests for 6 months after a slap back.
  This way big companies and trolls would be too afraid to make a mistake and would only go after real offenders, fair use would be safe, offenders would still be beat up. Everyone wins.
20. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by MobyDisk · 2016-03-23 10:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The judge can't compel you to do something illegal. Neither can a police officer.
21. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by shawn2772 · 2016-03-23 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  The DRM effectively prevents access to the firmware binary code
  Not the code that needs to be bypassed.
  
  Modifying the code in memory is also an exercise of the copyright owner's exclusive right to prepare derivative works.
  Assuming they have to modify it, which isn't necessarily the case.
22. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Etcetera · 2016-03-23 10:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The judge can't compel you to do something illegal. Neither can a police officer.
  That's begging the question slightly. "Following the directions of a peace officer" in an emergency is on the rulebooks in most states. This is why a cop can flip traffic around and tell you to go the wrong way down a one-way street because there's an accident in an intersection, despite the presence of a marked "One way" sign, which is usually what wrong-way laws are keyed off.
  Don't confuse "illegal" with "unsafe" or "unreasonable"... The latter standards apply more broadly.
  
  --
  Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
23. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by easyTree · 2016-03-23 11:04 · Score: 2
  
  No. That's only true if the uploader isn't a multinational corporation.
  
  --
  Requiem for the American Dream
24. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by silas_moeckel · 2016-03-23 11:04 · Score: 2
  
  DCMA would be civil a judges order for a criminal case provides pretty good cover. As far as criminal the state can grant you immunity.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
25. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Type44Q · 2016-03-23 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  The DMCA doesn't ban general breaking of security.
  You might be confusing facts with feelings..
26. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Temporary reclassification of traffic rules, is not the same thing as outright violation of law. For example even a simple construction worker with permission of the city/county/state can redirect traffic in such a way that it would normally be considered illegal. They have been given permission by the possessing entity to do so in these cases, as have police officers in the case of an accident. Heck even you can redirect traffic if you own the road, and in many cases private road owners simply restrict all traffic which has not been approved.
  The case against Apple differs as breaking or bypassing encryption is an outright violation of DCMA law, and neither possessing entity has given them permission to do so. On top of that Apple has an interest in preventing them from succeeding, because if they succeed then it will have been shown the there are vulnerabilities in Apple devices that can be exploited by other entities, thus potentially harming Apples stock value, or view of the company.
27. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by shawn2772 · 2016-03-23 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  The DMCA doesn't ban general breaking of security.
  You might be confusing facts with feelings..
  Nope. I can point you to the relevant text if you like.
28. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by niftymitch · 2016-03-23 12:05 · Score: 2
  
  DCMA...
  Not as interesting solution as patching the vulnerability shortly
  after this phone gets hacked.
  It appears to me that as an Israeli company they are far enough from US law
  that they could be a vent for a secret NSA/CIA method and secret. They are
  also far enough to make it hard for a US court to compel them to act.
  The $15,000 price tag seems low for anything involving software.
  Might be OK for a hardware hack that begins with a slurp of the
  data from the RAM. As a qualified forensic service, data retention seems to
  be a necessary first step.
  For the US DOJ an Israeli company is close to a friendly safe harbor as
  there might be out there. It may also be a safe outlet for Apple and
  the business of other legally compelled services. They could deny further
  requests on older hardware because a service company has surfaced.
  i.e. We charge $150,000.00 per device and did you know that another $15,000.00
  service exists.
  Win Win.... for now.
  
  --
  Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
29. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  You're not a lawyer, and neither am I, but you are hurting your cause by overstating the case and trying to reduce it to a boolean expression.
  So you agree an "outright" violation of traffic law in response to need is OK.
  So theres no reason to believe that a court could never find an outright violation of DMCA acceptable, where the intent is nothing to do with providing alternative products, competing by piggybacking off your competitors IP, avoiding purchasing their product and so forth, but instead national security etc.
30. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Fnord666 · 2016-03-23 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  Cellebrite has an American arm and is already the de facto forensics software for law enforcement in us and Canada.
  Maybe for mobile but for PCs all I ever see is EnCase.
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
31. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by LiENUS · 2016-03-23 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  This is why a cop can flip traffic around and tell you to go the wrong way down a one-way street because there's an accident in an intersection
  Contraflow lane reversal is generally on the lawbooks specifically enumerated. The police aren't instructing you to do anything illegal when they do that.
  You must follow any lawful order from a peace officer. A peace officer can't compel you to do something illegal. He can arrest you for refusing but if it truly is legal a judge should let you off and another judge should give you a nice settlement later. A judge on the other hand essentially decides what is illegal so he more or less can compel you to do something you feel is illegal.
32. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  What is this weird US obsession with calling a police officer a peace officer? Like it will somehow make then less likely to be assholes, but has zero affect except lulling you into a false sense of security.
33. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by AmiMoJo · 2016-03-24 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  Can they even use it against a foreign company? I've been ignoring (or occasionally mocking if I'm in the mood) DMCA notices I receive because I'm not in the US and it doesn't apply to me. As a side note it's amazing how many companies don't seem to get that.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
34. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by buck-yar · 2016-03-24 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  But if Cellebrite signs a NDA...
35. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by buck-yar · 2016-03-24 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  I don't get this police hate. Every dealing I've had, they've been very professional. Maybe its just this state (Vermont)? Out of all the professions I've dealt with, other than say Doctors, I'd put police right up there with how they carry themselves and act towards the public.
36. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by david_thornley · 2016-03-24 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, you want to slap stiff penalties on anyone suspected of filing a false takedown notice? (You said "instant", which precludes due process or even investigation). What's a false notice? Courts sometimes have to rule on infringement cases, since there can be a thin but fuzzy line between derivative and non-derivative, and fair use is not legally defined. Do we need ruling separating things into infringing, non-infringing, and obviously non-infringing?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
37. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by kimvette · 2016-03-24 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  > What is this weird US obsession with calling a police officer a peace officer?
  It makes fascism sound appealing:
  Militarized, barely-trained powerongering trigger-happy police are peace officers.
  War is peace.
  Freedom is slavery.
  I love Big Brother.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
38. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by Agripa · 2016-03-24 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  The term "thug" was already taken.
39. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by david_thornley · 2016-03-24 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  You're complaining about Google here, not the DMCA. Google is providing a free service here, and it gives them lots of control about how it's run.
  I think the problem is that YouTube is effectively a monopoly, so they can get away with abusing their users because there's nothing better the users can do.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
40. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by lgw · 2016-03-24 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  This whole mess only exists because of the DMCA. Civilization would get along just fine without it.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
41. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by lonecrow · 2016-03-25 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  $15k ???? Why so cheap? I can't imagine most ppl would get off the couch for such little money. Especially since the publicity they get is just as likely to attract bad attention as good.
42. Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by silas_moeckel · 2016-03-25 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  If they have assets in the US or anyplace thats far to nice to the US then yea they can be taken to court and a judgement enforced. In any event a court order in a criminal investigation is pretty much an absolute defence vs a civil court.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
43. Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them by david_thornley · 2016-03-25 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Civilization might be fine without the DMCA, but YouTube wouldn't be. Without some way to avoid legal liability for the exorbitant penalties that come with copyright suits, Google would find YouTube too dangerous to host. There needs to be some sort of safe-harbor provision.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Thereby ... by Krishnoid · 2016-03-23 08:57 · Score: 2

Stimulating the global economy. Win-win!
1. Re:Thereby ... by FatdogHaiku · 2016-03-23 09:31 · Score: 2
  
  I can never find that thing...
  Wait, Stimulating What?
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
2. Re:Thereby ... by The-Ixian · 2016-03-23 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  The little man in the canoe...
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
3. Re:Thereby ... by FatdogHaiku · 2016-03-23 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  OK, I don't know what you've heard, but my gal is just big boned... not repeat NOT "canoe class" at all!
  
  though your comment may shed some light on those hip waders under the bed...
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 08:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

How is it that tiny little war torn Israel always seems to have the latest in technology that we can't seem to get here in America?
1. Re:Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 09:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Because to live there you can't be a fucking pussy.
2. Re:Israel by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2016-03-23 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  How is it that tiny little war torn Israel always seems to have the latest in technology that we can't seem to get here in America?
  Heh. Basically you just asked why you're ignorant.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
3. Re:Israel by Grishnakh · 2016-03-23 09:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, actually they don't. You don't see commercial airliners (or military planes for that matter), ships, cars (including EVs), appliances ("durable goods"), semiconductors, mobile phones, or really almost any kind of manufacturing in Israel, except a couple of firearms makers maybe. They do do a lot with IP however; several semiconductor companies have design centers there.
  It's true, Israel does have some impressive and unique technologies developed there, compared to its size and its state of security. A lot of their technology is military-oriented, for obvious reasons. They've done an impressive job of building a 1st-world nation (economically speaking) in a small place which used to be nothing special less than a century ago. But "the latest in technology"? No, sorry. They are not self-sufficient in any sense. They can't even make many of the weapons systems that defend them; they buy them from the US (e.g. fighter jets).
4. Re:Israel by sixsixtysix · 2016-03-23 09:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  because we give them billions every year?
  
  --
  ...
5. Re:Israel by Quzak · 2016-03-23 10:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because of all the money the US gives to them...you know...instead of upkeep on our infrastructure.
  
  --
  Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
6. Re:Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's full of Russian emigres who didn't have any resources in school so they worked on math.
  Russia has always punched above it's weight in math. Just need a brain and a pencil. Even Soviet Russia managed pencils.
7. Re:Israel by serbanp · 2016-03-23 12:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You don't see commercial airliners (or military planes for that matter), ships, cars (including EVs), appliances ("durable goods"), semiconductors, mobile phones, or really almost any kind of manufacturing in Israel
  That's factually not true. TowerJazz (a top-ten pure-play manufacturer) has two modern fabs in Israel and the almighty #1 (intel) has two more in that country.
8. Re:Israel by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Several American companies offered to unlock the iPhone 5S. It's not exactly a secret how to get into it, it's just annoying because it takes some hardware modifications. To be honest, it's kind of embarrassing that the FBI can't do it themselves (or so they claim).
9. Re:Israel by radarskiy · 2016-03-24 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  That wasn't the claim that Grishnakh made.
10. Re:Israel by radarskiy · 2016-03-24 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  Besides which, TowerJazz *is* an Israeli company. It owns Jazz Semiconductor which is the US company.
FBI may be required to share hack with Apple by JoeyRox · 2016-03-23 08:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

The irony is sweet with this one:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
1. Re:FBI may be required to share hack with Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  The irony is sweet with this one:
  Except:
  
  The equities process also wouldnâ(TM)t apply to certain hacks that involve manipulating or damaging the hardware, which some experts have proposed as possible solutions.
  Which is likely the case here.
2. Re:FBI may be required to share hack with Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 09:13 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Hello Apple, as required by law, we inform you that we have discovered a security leak in your product. Full disclosure follows.
  In order to reproduce the problem:
  1. call Cellebrite
  2. pay $15,000.-
  3. Handover phone to Cellebrite
  4. receive USB stick with all data.
  regards, the FBI
3. Re:FBI may be required to share hack with Apple by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2016-03-23 09:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The legend is that they're copying off the NAND area. Basically, you can then brute force the phone as often as you want.
  You have 9 bad attempts. Then before you try the tenth, you copy the NAND back from before, in effect you reset the counter to 0. And you keep banging away.
  This won't work with newer phones with a Secure Element.
  So, there's no hack to share. Apple has already designed around this particular exploit.
4. Re:FBI may be required to share hack with Apple by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · 2016-03-23 09:58 · Score: 2
  
  That reminded me of a similar hack I read about a couple of years ago (and holy shit was it hard to find this again). It's about going around the 5 attempt limit per power cycle that exists in Opal compliant ATA password implementations.
  
  --
  -SR
5. Re:FBI may be required to share hack with Apple by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-03-23 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Hello Apple, as required by law, we inform you that we have discovered a security leak in your product. Full disclosure follows.
  In order to reproduce the problem:
  1. call Cellebrite
  2. pay $15,000.-
  3. Handover phone to Cellebrite
  4. receive USB stick with some data. Full data goes to Mossad
  regards, the FBI
  FTFY
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
6. Re:FBI may be required to share hack with Apple by ooloorie · 2016-03-24 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  By hiring an Israeli company instead of breaking in themselves, they seem to have insulated themselves from that requirement.
7. Re:FBI may be required to share hack with Apple by Cramer · 2016-03-24 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Except that it doesn't actually work. (hint: the counter isn't stored in user flash.) Also, everyone is assuming the "erase me" flag is set. The phone gives ZERO indication that's been set.
Only $15,278.02? by bsDaemon · 2016-03-23 09:00 · Score: 2

There must not be too much secret sauce involved if they're going to do it that cheaply.
While that listing shows that they have bought SOMETHING from Cellbrite, I think I'd like to see a little more evidence before I'm convinced that this shows they hired Cellbrite to hack the San Bernardino iPhone. https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/... shows that the Secret Service bought $781k worth of something from them on the 10th of March.
A single FPDS entry doesn't really mean anything.
1. Re:Only $15,278.02? by DaHat · 2016-03-23 09:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Devices like this have been around for a bit and is one possibility: http://blog.mdsec.co.uk/2015/0...
  
  --
  Help Brendan pay off his student loans
2. Re:Only $15,278.02? by shawn2772 · 2016-03-23 09:34 · Score: 2
  
  Devices like this have been around for a bit and is one possibility: http://blog.mdsec.co.uk/2015/0...
  I believe the weakness that made that device possible was fixed in iOS 9, so it wouldn't be useful.
$15,000 by wisnoskij · 2016-03-23 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wow, they should of asked for more. They would of had to pay 10 times, at least, that in any sort of legal battle.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
1. Re:$15,000 by TechyImmigrant · 2016-03-23 09:06 · Score: 2
  
  A reusable capability would cost more. Cracking one phone without revealing the methods for $15k would be marketing.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
2. Re:$15,000 by Thelasko · 2016-03-23 09:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wow, they should of asked for more. They would of had to pay 10 times, at least, that in any sort of legal battle.
  Cellebrite will likely reap 100 times that much in new business from the publicity this generates. It's not always about making a quick buck, but about making millions of bucks over the longer term.
  
  --
  One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
3. Re:$15,000 by chadenright · 2016-03-23 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  I had an opportunity to attend schools in each of the west coast states, and I've seen the same error made in Washington, Oregon and California. It's not exclusive to the south, just to native-English Americans. Probably because "should've" -sounds- like "should of".
4. Re:$15,000 by Grishnakh · 2016-03-23 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes when I see certain errors like that (where it's made into words that sound much like how it's pronounced as you pointed out), I kinda wonder if the writer isn't using some speech-to-text software...
Chain of custody? by hawguy · 2016-03-23 09:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

How do you maintain chain of custody of the evidence if you hand it over to a company that's not governed by our laws?
If the Israeli company recovers data that gives them leads to other suspected terrorists, does the FBI have legal authority to pursue those leads when the information was "extracted" by a foreign company and it may or may not be fabricated? The only proof that they have that the information was really on the phone is because this company said so.
1. Re:Chain of custody? by david.emery · 2016-03-23 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  But would the Cellebrite methods be subject to Discovery by the defendant's attorneys?
  Both the chain-of-evidence issue (establishing and maintaining the environment) and the discovery issue were raised by Apple in its opposition, pointing out that a 'cracking facility' had substantial costs associated with it.
2. Re:Chain of custody? by Lumpy · 2016-03-23 09:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Chain of custody does not matter in regards to TERRORISM.... and if you are against that then you hate america.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
3. Re:Chain of custody? by swb · 2016-03-23 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously? They'd fly these guys into the US and make them do the work here.
  I would doubt these guys get to do anything that isn't overseen by 20 FBI agents at all times.
  It wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't have a diplomat from the Israeli embassy as some kind of observer as well.
4. Re:Chain of custody? by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-03-23 09:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How do you maintain chain of custody of the evidence if you hand it over to a company that's not governed by our laws?
  If the Israeli company recovers data that gives them leads to other suspected terrorists, does the FBI have legal authority to pursue those leads when the information was "extracted" by a foreign company and it may or may not be fabricated? The only proof that they have that the information was really on the phone is because this company said so.
  There is no need for maintaining a chain of custody unless it will be used as evidence. Since anything from this phone would most likely be used to identify potential suspects or persons of interest what they get is no different than any other tip.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
5. Re:Chain of custody? by Joe_Dragon · 2016-03-23 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  if they get a full trail. Maybe not in a tribunal trail.
6. Re:Chain of custody? by shawn2772 · 2016-03-23 09:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  How do you maintain chain of custody of the evidence if you hand it over to a company that's not governed by our laws?
  That's not a problem, for at least two reasons.
  First, chain of custody doesn't matter unless you want to use the information recovered as evidence in a trial. If you just use it to generate leads which you then use to find other suspects and evidence, then it's irrelevant if chain of custody was maintained.
  Second, chain of custody is easy to maintain. Location and nationality don't affect chain of custody. What matters is that you have a documented chain and can prove that custody was maintained and access was controlled at each step. Worst case is that employees of the Israeli company may have to fly to the US and testify in court to substantiate the chain of custody, and to explain how they extracted the information. I'm sure the company would be happy to do that if the FBI paid them to (which would be an additional fee).
7. Re:Chain of custody? by david.emery · 2016-03-23 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  I would expect the San Bernardino case to be a 'full trial' investigation, so any subsequent prosecutions from evidence obtained from this phone would be subject to criminal law procedures.
8. Re:Chain of custody? by AHuxley · 2016-03-23 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  The idea was to conscript a method for a generation of phones so the US federal law enforcement and US state/federal task forces could stand before any open US court and present all material found on any generation of cell phone.
  The created master key could then be understood by all in a public court setting any tech experts could track back any methods to their origins and go over all findings.
  Thats why the very public gov conscripted master key was attempted. The public chain of custody idea was pushed so any US court could be presented with a simple conscripted story of how all the data was now readable and all related crypto methods would be open court ready.
  This will be interesting for all the other pending US state and federal encrypted cell phone hardware waiting to be presented to an open court.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
9. Re:Chain of custody? by hawguy · 2016-03-23 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  First they prove they can do it by giving them several phones with the same kind of firmware, iOS version, encryption, etc, set up and locked by the FBI with known data with the FBI watching and being informed in detail what is going one each step of the way. Assuming they are successful, they then fly out the team to a controled area, have all their equipment and software inspected. You then put out 5 phones of which one is the real one, and 4 others have fake but known data. As long as the 4 fake phones have the data you are expecting, it is very likely the data from the real one is correct (not altered.)
  Of course, if it is a software solution of some sort that is relatively easy to run, the FBI could just buy it and run the tests themselves...
  So this hacking team is so elite they can break into a phone that no one else can, but they somehow are fooled by some fake data?
10. Re: Chain of custody? by jofas · 2016-03-23 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  You deputize them.
11. Re:Chain of custody? by Flea+of+Pain · 2016-03-23 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure the company would be happy to do that if the FBI paid them to (which would be an additional fee).
  Reminds me of an oldie but a goody from Red vs. Blue...
  Starts at 5:10
  
  --
  Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
12. Re:Chain of custody? by rahvin112 · 2016-03-23 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  According to the court documents, the entire purpose of cracking this phone is to determine if charges need to be brought against other people. In other words the intent IS to use this in a criminal trial if such cooperation is found on the phone.
  The FBI and half the world has been arguing both sides of this. The FBI says in court documents they absolutely need this to find out if there are other conspirators. In public they talk about needing the ability to combat terrorism. Both arguments are lies, this is about precedent and always has been.
13. Re:Chain of custody? by shawn2772 · 2016-03-23 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  According to the court documents, the entire purpose of cracking this phone is to determine if charges need to be brought against other people. In other words the intent IS to use this in a criminal trial if such cooperation is found on the phone.
  Your second sentence doesn't follow from your first. Yes, they're (allegedly) looking for conspirators. But information on the phone could identify conspirators without providing evidence against them that can be used to convict them. For example, it could just contain their e-mail addresses or phone numbers. That would be useless in court, but useful to investigators who would then look into the identified individuals and seek to gather evidence. With or without a tight chain of custody, information on the phone would be useful in obtaining search warrants.
  
  The FBI and half the world has been arguing both sides of this. The FBI says in court documents they absolutely need this to find out if there are other conspirators. In public they talk about needing the ability to combat terrorism. Both arguments are lies, this is about precedent and always has been.
  Oh, absolutely. And once they realized they were going to lose and the precedent was going to go against them, they decided on the current strategy to save face. Next they'll announce that Cellebrite cracked the phone but there was nothing useful on it.
14. Re:Chain of custody? by timmyf2371 · 2016-03-23 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  The point is that we don't know what is on the 'real' iPhone - that's why they have recruited this team of experts. The people doing the work don't know what's on the iPhone either, so they will not know whether or not the iPhone they are working on at any given time is the real one or a decoy.
  
  --
  
  Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
15. Re:Chain of custody? by david_thornley · 2016-03-24 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Methinks people are confusing chain of custody with illegal search. The phone will (almost certainly not) give indications that other people should be investigated. If the phone had been illegally searched, any investigation based on it would be "fruit of the poisoned tree" and the information would be inadmissible in court, which is why the FBI would make up a story about how the investigation started and lie about it under oath. If there's no chain of custody, it means that evidence from the phone is not going to be particularly useful in court, but using that information to start an investigation is fine.
  Law enforcement officers can start an investigation for pretty much any reason that's not explicitly forbidden, and if they can find enough evidence they can bring it to trial.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
16. Re:Chain of custody? by shawn2772 · 2016-03-24 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Methinks people are confusing chain of custody with illegal search.
  That could well be. I've certainly seen that mistake made before.
Only $15,000???? by gurps_npc · 2016-03-23 09:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

All that bullshit because the FBI wanted to save $15 thousand dollars?
Someone should be fired for such a dramatically bad decision as fighting it out in the court of public opinion, let alone federal court.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
1. Re:Only $15,000???? by PCM2 · 2016-03-23 09:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  All that bullshit because the FBI wanted to save $15 thousand dollars?
  On the other hand, $15,000 is pretty damn cheap for a global marketing campaign. When Cellebrite can't crack the iPhone, the bullshit will get cranked up to fever pitch.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
2. Re:Only $15,000???? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2016-03-23 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  All that bullshit because the FBI wanted to save $15 thousand dollars?
  Someone should be fired for such a dramatically bad decision as fighting it out in the court of public opinion, let alone federal court.
  The more likely explanation - for both this and several other related news items - is that the FBI isn't particularly competent.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
3. Re:Only $15,000???? by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2016-03-23 09:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No.
  the FBI wanted to save 15,000 x A_LOT_OF_PHONES. Also, if the exploit is the NAND copy exploit as thought, newer phones can't be hacked this way, 15,000 or no.
  They wanted to set a precedent. There's ton of iPhones out there waiting to be cracked. Remember these are the guys that run Stingrays without telling you.
  As far as the Public Opinion goes, they just guessed wrong. Here's a phone, probably with nothing useful on it. But TERRORISM!!! MUSLIMS!!!! We still have some aspects of the P.AT.R.I.O.T. A.C.T (i write it that way because the back-ronym was silly) around because we were scared then. They thought that Apple would fold, and the public would all support the hack. They guessed wrong.
4. Re:Only $15,000???? by bloodstar · 2016-03-23 09:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, the $15K is to justify dropping the case by rending the whole situation moot and save the FBI from having a court decision against them. A court decision against them would resonate for years, so you drop the case, avoid that precedent. Then pick a different case against a company who doesn't have great lawyers. Win that case, and there you go, precedent that favors you.
  
  --
  "The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
5. Re: Only $15,000???? by jsh1972 · 2016-03-23 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  I was wondering why no one had seemed to figure this out yet.
6. Re:Only $15,000???? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2016-03-24 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  They thought that Apple would fold, and the public would all support the hack. They guessed wrong.
  Majority of public != Majority of Slashdotters
  
  They guessed wrong on Apple folding, but every poll I read about had a clear majority of the US public favoring the hack being done. Do many of you here even have any kind of relationship with people who aren't in IT? I mean I know we joke about guys living in their mom's basement and playing video games all day, but time and time again folks here assume incorrectly that the vast majority if the American public supports their personal stances on various issues and it's just not true at all.
7. Re:Only $15,000???? by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2016-03-24 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  There may be one small piece of info that's actually useful. They might have been walking around with the work phone and they might have left a trail of breadcrumbs in the phone, something not uploaded to iCloud servers.
  But apple, based on privacy complains before, started wiping this. So it only goes back X days. So, you need to balance. Is position data for X days, where you hope they had their work phone on them when they talked to people with terrorist leanings, worth the damage to the privacy of everyone? I think no. Most would say no as well.
  There was a great article in the paper about them (wish i saved a link) about how he slowly and slowly got more devout, and he went to muslim matching sites to find a bride. He didn't seem recruited as part of a cell. He got pissed at a coworker who was a devout jew who believed in christ, and he went off. There's probably not a network to find.
8. Re:Only $15,000???? by dbIII · 2016-03-24 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  these are the guys that run Stingrays without telling you
  Crikey!
9. Re:Only $15,000???? by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2016-04-05 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  This is why they are so secret with Stingrays. They run them, phones don't show that you're on a Stingray (the phone has to downgrade to 2G to be susceptible to the attack, surely the phone could show you). They don't want to talk about it because they don't want to have to support it in court.
Outsourced espionage of citizens, treason? by Pitawg · 2016-03-23 09:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sounds illegal in both national and international levels, but I am still waiting for the encryption ban after this.
Imagine every LEO calling a mumble "Encryption" or "Code". Everything not understood must be encrypted. Remember the gang signs lockup for waving? Any files on your phone must be plain, and in all languages or it must be hidden messages. New tools for racists or classist members of LE or Government.
Re: Ah so it is legal by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 09:12 · Score: 1

Ummm... It's legal for the government to do a lot of things that Joe Citizen cannot, like arrest people, wage war, tap someone's phone, etc.
There are (or should be) certain requirements that must be met, like a warrant, probable cause, transparency, etc., but that's kinda what governments do: they are given extraordinary powers to ostensibly defend life, liberty, etc.
There's arguments to be made over whether a given action (like breaking into phones) should be done by the government, and they certainly abuse those powers at times but it's silly to assume it's legal for everyone if the government does it.
Win WIn by Dorianny · 2016-03-23 09:18 · Score: 1

It is hard to imagine that Cellebrite has a method that doesn't involve the well discuessed method of physically reading the serial off the chip. Perhaps the FBI sees it as a win win situation. They already have admitted that its unlikely there is much of use on the phone. If it works they have a company that has proven itself proficent at this sort of hacking and if it doesn't, it strengthens their legal argument against Apple
For $15,000 they may not be told how it's done by raymorris · 2016-03-23 09:18 · Score: 1

If they're only paying $15,000, they may only be paying to have this phone hacked, without being told the key details of how it's done. They don't have to share information that they don't have.
Hmm, how do we walk away? by Voltas · 2016-03-23 09:18 · Score: 1

Hmmm, how can we back down from a battle, we are clearly losing, to Apple while saving face and boosting our Israeli relations related to terrorism?

--
-- Disclaimer: I can't really back up anything I post on /. --
then the TPTA may force them to be locked up by Joe_Dragon · 2016-03-23 09:28 · Score: 1

then the TPTA may force them to be locked up. I think the fbi can get them in to a very nice club fed.
As embarrassing as O.J. Simpson by LostMyBeaver · 2016-03-23 09:35 · Score: 1

I wonder if the FBI understands that this should be as embarrassing for them as the O.J. Simpson evidence cock up. It'll work for them this time, but due to their poor handling of evidence in this case, in the future, it will be borderline impossible to decrypt phones even with Apple's help.
1. Re:As embarrassing as O.J. Simpson by TheGratefulNet · 2016-03-23 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  you and I and 99.99% of everyone else here has NO IDEA what the truth is.
  it could be that the fbi already has the data, but they are trying for court precidents. could be that the nsa already has the data. could be that apple has a friendly relationship (at the most secret level) with feds and yet keeps a two-face story going.
  not one single person here (who would be dumb enough to post) has any clue at all.
  we are wasting our time even talking about such things.
  and, would I buy a 'secure' iphone, now? I still don't trust a single person who has anything to do with cellphones and chips, these days. there's not the tinest bit of trust in what they would tell us.
  hell, even intel cpus (for desktops, etc) are a complete mystery. orange books that claim to only be given to the top oem's, which give the REAL internals of the cpu chips - you and I will never see those and we can't even be sure they really exist.
  this is the world we live in. zero trust, at this point. if your mamma tells you she loves you, 'check it out'.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:AC post delay by KlomDark · 2016-03-23 09:44 · Score: 1

There's a solution to that - log in already...
Re:A court case would set precedent by Coren22 · 2016-03-23 09:50 · Score: 1

which FBI would lose
It is nice to see a lawyer weigh in. So, exactly how would the FBI lose? They have permission from the owner of the phone, and are asking for a one time exploit that wouldn't be able to be reused as it would 1. be signed with the Apple key, and 2. would have the device ID in it.
So, exactly how would this be an amendment court case?

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Ah so it is legal by Coren22 · 2016-03-23 09:53 · Score: 1

When you are the owner of the phone, it is legal for you to do whatever you like to it.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Illegal! by JimSadler · 2016-03-23 10:04 · Score: 1

Just because the FBI contracts with a company or individual does not mean that criminal and civil laws do not apply. Breaking the encryption for one iPhone lowers the value of every iPhone as well as damaging the brand name. If it would be illegal for me to crack into a phone then it would be equally illegal for a contractor or even the FBI itself to do the same thing.
1. Re:Illegal! by J053 · 2016-03-23 10:39 · Score: 2
  
  Not when the relevant law (DMCA in this case) explicitly says it does not apply to law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The law doesn't mean just what you want it to mean, it means what it actually says.
2. Re:Illegal! by david_thornley · 2016-03-24 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's illegal for me to break into a building and start looking around. It's legal for police to do that while executing a search warrant. In this case, though, the owner of the phone wants it cracked into, which means that cracking is perfectly legal. You could do it perfectly legally if the owner wanted you to.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Protecting sources and methods by perpenso · 2016-03-23 10:09 · Score: 1

The irony is sweet with this one: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

Doubtful. They are protecting sources and methods by refusing to disclose to Apple.
Let them by dmomo · 2016-03-23 10:21 · Score: 1

And then let Apple pay them $20,000 to show them how they did it, so Apple can plug that vulnerability too.
That being said, I'm less worried about there being a way to hack a device if the hack requires physical possession.
It's remote carte blanche access I that concerns me the most.
FBI have known this all along by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-23 10:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

At this stage I'd have to conclude that the FBI have known about this all along. Cellebrite is not a new company and they have supplied equipment and services to the FBI and other agencies on multiple occasions.
If they have had this option all along, why bother with Apple? The only reason was to set a precedent for the modern day use of All of Writs Act against a high profile tech company. Also, if they were successful with Apple, then it would give the FBI and other agencies leverage against Microsoft and Google.
According to the FBI they have other phones they wanted to unlock as well, so why wait until now? Because this phone is related to terrorism, and 'terrorism' is a trigger word for the hearts and minds of the American public. I suspect that they thought a company with a high reliance on their PR profile would crumble in the face of claims of abetting terrorism. Maybe they thought that Apple wouldn't put up much of a fight, or that they would roll over because they have helped the government in the past. The reality certainly hasn't played out that way for the FBI.
Why give up now? The FBI have acknowledged that the personal phones the couple used were destroyed (which is where the key information would have been) and that the iPhone was not likely to have had much if any useful information. It is possible they have already unlocked the iPhone and have found this out. It is also possible that the FBI's legal team thought they would lose against Apple's latest filing.
Where to from here? Hard to say. Both Apple and the FBI will try to spin this in their favour. The process has already been classified by the DoD, but this is probably more to prevent Apple from trying to claim breach of their trade secrets by the Cellebrite.
Not in Canada by future+assassin · 2016-03-23 10:46 · Score: 1

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
1. Re:Not in Canada by adamstew · 2016-03-24 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  You are quoting an article on Canada. Their legal system doesn't apply to the USA.
Why are you putting words [in brackets]? by wonkey_monkey · 2016-03-23 11:16 · Score: 1

Earlier this week, the FBI asked the court for a continuance so it could do some research into a proposed method of cracking the [iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino, California shooters].
Why are you putting that in brackets?
Usually brackets like this indicate an alteration to a quote for clarity or taste, such as 'The defendant stated that he had "never seen the stupid [female dog]"'
If you're not linking to something from which this can be seen to be a quote, why are you putting the brackets in? It's not helpful.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Whose court will they sue them in? by mmell · 2016-03-23 11:25 · Score: 1

Oh, yeah . . . theirs
With a low UID like yours, I suspect you and I may be of similar vintage. I therefore trust you'll understand when I say "you can't fight City Hall".
15 GRAND?! by jsh1972 · 2016-03-23 11:37 · Score: 1

Good LAWD that's a lot of money- John McAffee would have done it for bath salts!
Why don't they just go with the obvious answer? by Cito · 2016-03-23 12:22 · Score: 1

Pick up the phone and call Geohot!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... :P
In your dreams by Bruce66423 · 2016-03-23 12:24 · Score: 1

Great idea; ain't going to happen. The ability of the big boys to ever extend their copyrights is a clear sign of who's got the power in this area.
But wait... by msauve · 2016-03-23 12:26 · Score: 1

Isn't there some diet pill which will eliminate cellebrite?

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Going to state this, yet again by AbRASiON · 2016-03-23 12:50 · Score: 1

This is a RUMOR that I do not have concrete information on.
However,...
I've read at least twice, that the perps deliberately physically destroyed their personal phones. The phone in question is a business phone. The likelyhood of anything being on this phone is very very slim. Simply by the fact they had the sense to kill the other phone, it implies this one is super likely to be empty.
May not be the actual case and could be untrue, but if it is, all this is likely to be for nothing.
Torrent in 1003, 1002, 1001... by CanEHdian · 2016-03-23 13:21 · Score: 2

Cellebrite.iPhorensics.Suite.Government.and.Law.Enforcement.Edition.x64.v1.02.incl.Keygen.-.CoRE
Now every kiddie can haXX0r da iPhonez

--
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
1. Re:Torrent in 1003, 1002, 1001... by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-03-23 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  http://revision3.com/hak5/update-with-the-rubber-duck
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
For investigation. Pay more for expert witness lat by raymorris · 2016-03-23 15:51 · Score: 1

They don't yet know whether there is anything they can use even in the investigation, much less in court. If they want to use it in court, they'll have to pay the company to send an expert witness and testify about it. There's a lot more to pay if and when they decide to use it in court.
Then there is an easy solution ? by aepervius · 2016-03-23 19:24 · Score: 1

Allows apple to make an iOS version which is *effectively* the 8.1 or 7 or whatever, a downgrad of iOS, then have it loaded on the phone then let the FBI use the linked device ?

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Re:A court case would set precedent by penguinoid · 2016-03-23 20:11 · Score: 1

They could always have hired the company to "accidentally" destroy the phone's data, proving that encryption is evil and the only solution is to give the government every power it asks for.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Re:Hilarity to follow? by Plumpaquatsch · 2016-03-23 22:35 · Score: 1

Have they tried "0911" already?

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
$15k is for software license renewal by eples · 2016-03-24 01:22 · Score: 1

The description clearly reads:

IGF::OT::IGF UFED software renewals for seven machines.
I'm not an expert, I just clicked the link that read "View" to see the details.

$15k sounds about right for software licensing to me, how exactly do you get them hacking the iPhone in question from that?

--
I'm a 2000 man.
Wait by maseo126 · 2016-03-24 13:59 · Score: 1

That's all it would cost? 15K to crack the encryption?