Slashdot Mirror


FBI Unlocks iPhone Without Apple's Help In San Bernadino Case (recode.net)

New submitter A_Mang writes: After asking for a delay last week, today the FBI revealed that a third party has succeeded in unlocking the iPhone used by a shooter in the San Bernadino attack. They've asked the court to vacate their request for an injunction forcing Apple to provide tools for unlocking the phone. "The government has now successfully accessed the data stored on Farook's iPhone and therefore no longer requires the assistance from Apple Inc. mandated by Court's Order," the filing reads. The report doesn't elaborate on how they've gained access, nor does it reveal any of the information stored on the phone. What we do know is that last week the FBI contracted Israeli software provider, Cellebrite, to help break into the phone.

457 comments

  1. Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Could anyone meaningfully comment on whether the FBI actually did this, and if so, how? Creating a clone for them to exhaustively attack maybe?

    1. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So, how does this now play for Apple, who banked on their phones being secure as a selling point?

    2. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Could anyone meaningfully comment on whether the FBI actually did this, and if so, how? Creating a clone for them to exhaustively attack maybe?

      Yeah, they accessed the data on the phone by letting the San Bernardino County unlock the phone with the MDM software they had installed in it.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    3. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The FBI just proved Apple's case...that it did not need to require Apple to unlock the phone. They simply used one of the companies that figured out how to do it for the NSA, CIA, etc.

    4. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess they'll have to release a security patch or forever be seen as being vulnerable...

    5. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It was an old phone without the secure enclave, they can just say that they probably already closed that hole, particularly if it was the attack of rewriting the flash.

    6. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a few ways to go about it, but you have the right idea.

    7. Re:Suggestions anyone? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They will use it as an argument to sell a newer model.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    8. Re:Suggestions anyone? by kuzb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no such thing as a 100% secure platform. Every time someone makes such a boast the system gets hacked - usually very publicly.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    9. Re:Suggestions anyone? by shawn2772 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, how does this now play for Apple, who banked on their phones being secure as a selling point?

      It's not a big problem if Apple's PR does their job (and they're very good at their job). The 5C didn't have the separate security chip and was known to be less secure for that reason. The 5S and newer do, and should be harder to penetrate. If the FBI had gotten into one of the latest models, that would have been a bigger issue.

      Also, it's worth pointing out that we don't actually know that the FBI did get Farook's phone decrypted. Odds are they never cared about that anyway, but only about setting the precedent by requiring Apple to help them, then when they saw the ruling was likely to go against them decided back down. Claiming to have gotten in another way just helps the FBI save face... and maybe attempts to make Apple look bad, both by making their devices appear insecure and by making the company appear to be needlessly obstructionist.

    10. Re:Suggestions anyone? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, how does this now play for Apple, who banked on their phones being secure as a selling point?

      Did anyone believe that the security of an iPhone (or Android Phone) would stand up to the resources available to a nation state - particularly one known to collect zero day exploits they keep to themselves?

      And don't parrot back "the FBI said it wasn't another government agency" - you might be inclined to take them at their word, but it's been obvious to me for some time that they will lie to the public if they feel it suits their interests. So we don't know who did it.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    11. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It was an iPhone 5c. It doesn't have the "secure enclave" that later models have, and is nowhere near as secure as these recent models, and by "recent", I mean anything that's a 5s or above.

      See https://www.apple.com/business... for the gory details, or https://www.mikeash.com/pyblog... for a more readable version, but basically the secure enclave is designed to prevent brute-force attacks like the FBI wanted to use.

      I'm reasonably certain that Apple's security team will have a larger remit on the next phone, to the extent that the secure enclave is invulnerable even to Apple (the above link speculates that it currently is not, and would therefore be vulnerable to a court warrant akin to the recent furore).

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    12. Re:Suggestions anyone? by funwithBSD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which they had already done once, then LOST THE PASSWORD.

      http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-b...

      At any rate, physical security is the most important part of security. If they have the device, they will eventually crack it.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    13. Re:Suggestions anyone? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1, Informative

      So, how does this now play for Apple, who banked on their phones being secure as a selling point?

      This was an iPhone 5c... it lacks Secure Enclave...

      The iPhone 5s and newer do not have this problem...

    14. Re:Suggestions anyone? by mattventura · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Probably good for Apple, actually. The problem with using this case as a precedent for whether or not a phone manufacturer should be required to unlock a phone or not is that Apple could have assisted them with the unlocking by doing what the FBI requested (writing a custom OS to facilitate unlocking). But now, Apple has already plugged that hole in newer models, which means if the same case were to happen with a newer iPhone, it would be even more in Apple's favor. On top of that, it wouldn't surprise me if the reason the FBI has backed out of the case is because they didn't think they were going to win and so didn't want to set a precedent which would be unfavorable to them.

      Assuming there isn't some similar hole on the newer phones, I'm pretty sure Apple (and privacy, for that matter) is the big winner here.

    15. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Sparowl · · Score: 1

      The problem is that if Apple knows what they are doing, they can try and push for a legal precedent to use against the government in the future. Apple certainly has the money to push for it, as well as the PR team to make it look good. After all, what other phone company is fighting the big bad government for your right to security?

    16. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don;t be so gullible. The FBI did not categorically say they cracked the iphone encryption. They said they accessed the data on the phone. It was a cracked iTunes pone backup for all we know. The FBI has a significant motive to mislead in order to to avoid a negative precedent in district court.
      Read the actual filing:
      http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/28/technology/document-us-filing-dropping-apple-case.html

    17. Re:Suggestions anyone? by larkost · · Score: 3, Informative

      From my understanding the County had an MDM system, and it was managing some settings but that they had not yet started putting an "enterprise" password setting yet. The password change that is in the link you posted was on the iCloud account, not on the phone. They probably just used Apple's automated system and asked it to send the password reset verification to his (work) email, which they already had control of.

      That did not solve anything, but rather meant that there was now no way that the phone could be induced to backup to iCloud, where a parent could have produced the data (Apple had already given them older backups that were there). To this point I have not heard anyone in the position to know comment on whether this was a hair-brained scheme by someone who didn't know what they were doing, or a more cynical attempt by the FBI to setup a situation where they could fish for new powers. Generally I would tend to the incompetence explanation (especially since this was very shortly after the event), but the FBI directors sliminess in this episode makes me eye the other possibility more.

    18. Re:Suggestions anyone? by tlambert · · Score: 3, Funny

      There is no such thing as a 100% secure platform. Every time someone makes such a boast the system gets hacked - usually very publicly.

      Sounds like it's a lot cheaper to boast about your platform instead of paying bug bounties, doesn't it?

    19. Re:Suggestions anyone? by plague911 · · Score: 0

      "Odds are they never cared about that anyway, " Thats epic level bullshit. There were loads of obvious reasons There are plenty of philosophical arguments pro-security there is no need to devolve into a blithering idiot denying the obvious benefits to getting into a rather public terrorist's private communication device.

    20. Re:Suggestions anyone? by plague911 · · Score: 1
      Certainly not Apple. Obvious PR stunt on the back of a national security issue is an obvious PR stunt. http://qz.com/618371/apple-is-...

      and many others.

    21. Re:Suggestions anyone? by cweber · · Score: 1

      It's an iPhone 5C without secure area on the silicon itself. Much weaker than iPhone 6 and 6S, relying on software to do the job of the silicon.
      I'd expect newer iPhones to be secure for now.

    22. Re:Suggestions anyone? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Given unlimited resources I imagine they can probably crack any consumer level device eventually. They just wanted to save the trouble and expense and force Apple to open it for them. When they realized that Apple wouldn't and that they could not force them to they did what they should have done to start with. The fuckers are lazy.

    23. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Israeli software company??
      Boycott Israel

    24. Re:Suggestions anyone? by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      You're funny.

      This was not a properly secured iPhone. It used a 4-digit PIN. If you're math-challenged, that's on average 4500 attempts to break it. The phone used some DRMesque hardware obfuscation alchemy to try to make that 4-digit PIN secure. DRMesque alchemy doesn't typically work. Proper encryption does typically work. It's well known among people with brains that a 4-character numeric-only passcode is not sufficient for a disk encryption password.

      It is extremely likely that a properly secured Apple or Android phone would be impenetrable to any actor, especially now that we have additional reason to believe Apple and others are not currently building a backdoor into their products. Such a phone would also be awkward to use, since you'd need to enter a 15+-character alphanumeric password to unlock it. But if you're a terrorist that's probably worth it.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    25. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the FBI can prosecute citizens of Israel for treason against America?

    26. Re:Suggestions anyone? by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's kind of a Pyrrhic victory.

      Yeah, Apple didn't have to help them.

      But that's because Apple's phones were not secure.

    27. Re:Suggestions anyone? by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      Either you're wrong, or you're aware of a 0-day exploit against Loop-Amnesia, Tresor, TrueCrypt, dm-crypt, loop-AES, BitLocker, and FileVault. If you're aware of such a serious security hole, please report it. Kthxbye.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    28. Re:Suggestions anyone? by plague911 · · Score: 2

      No, But given the firm named previously was a Israeli firm, there is a good chance they are dual citizens working on this for the military. Also the US has many other agreements/charges that could be pressed with/without the corporation of Israel. Most likely with.

    29. Re:Suggestions anyone? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It cannot have been very difficult, it was far too fast for that. My guess was FLASH removal, replacement with emulator, and then try 10x, shut down phone, reset emulator, boot, try 10x,.... If I am right, this is something I and many others could do in our home-labs. It would also mean that the FBI directly lied when claiming to need Apple's help.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    30. Re:Suggestions anyone? by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Without secure enclave, the phone is basically wide open for pretty simple attacks on the hardware. With secure enclave, things may be a lot different.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    31. Re:Suggestions anyone? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. Apple will have an excellent idea of what they did.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    32. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you believe everything the government tells you?

    33. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, given that 4 digit PINs are not evenly distributed in the space, the average is much lower. According to the last study I saw, 1/3 takes 61 attempts, 50% is just under 500 attempts and 75% is just about 2800 attempts.

    34. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You'll note that this was NOT his personal communication device. This was his work phone, which he left behind whole. He destroyed his own personal phone, whose secrets he obviously cared about. Note also that the FBI had already gotten a backup of the data on this phone from a number of weeks prior to the attack. Given all that, it's highly probable that there's nothing incriminating on that phone at all.

      You still think this was just about getting access to that phone for intelligence reasons? Are you telling me the FBI didn't even know about this Israeli security firm that could unlock iPhones? Because they obviously didn't even bother asking them before going to the courts.

      Please. They backed off because they saw the wind wasn't blowing in their direction. The *last* thing they wanted to do was to lose this case and set a negative precedent.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    35. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Khyber · · Score: 0

      Probably the same way I hacked an iPad Mini2 (which uses the same A7 model as the 5S and has secure enclave) to save a drunk moron from losing every bit of data they had on their iPad Mini2 because they changed the password while drunk and had formatted their computer.

      It's absolutely trivial given an oscilloscope and some proper live-rail bit banging.

      Man can make it, man can break it. Zero exception.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    36. Re:Suggestions anyone? by plague911 · · Score: 1

      Why cause they are so all knowing? I imagine someone with that level of expertise would never leave a vulnerability in their security paradigm for someone to crack.

    37. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite a few people did looking at how I got modded and the flippant responses to my comments I posted under my UID both here and on the red site.

      The FBI may or may not have actually gotten the data, true. I still maintain that it's utterly impossible to deny access to somebody who physically has the device short of something like an alarm that sets off a small explosive if it detects any tampering. Even then that's not good enough expect to protect anything other than the first device (not even the first model with that capability). The device has to boot somehow.

      All I really had to say when I saw this news was "Bwahahaha! Guess who knows jack about crypto now fanbois!"

    38. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure a 4 digit number can be cracked fairly easily. However, the problem in this case was you only had 9 guesses after which the data is deleted from the phone. Apple knew from the very start that you could solve the problem. If Apple knew there was no solution they could have stated that upfront and told the court that there was nothing they could do to satisfy the court order. But they did not take that path because it would have been a full blown lie. And if Apple could solve the access problem then so could anyone else with the right resources. And whose to say that whoever did solve the sign-in problem did exactly how Apple would have done it.

    39. Re: Suggestions anyone? by tnk1 · · Score: 1, Troll

      What am I supposed to be skeptical of?

      Their statement that they broke the phone and don't need the court order anymore? Why would they bother lying about that?

    40. Re:Suggestions anyone? by darkseid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You still think this was just about getting access to that phone for intelligence reasons? Are you telling me the FBI didn't even know about this Israeli security firm that could unlock iPhones? Because they obviously didn't even bother asking them before going to the courts.

      Please. They backed off because they saw the wind wasn't blowing in their direction. The *last* thing they wanted to do was to lose this case and set a negative precedent.

      Wish I had mod points. The FBI back down because they were about to have their ass handed to them in Federal Court, setting exactly the opposite precedent that they wanted!

    41. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're funny.

      This was not a properly secured iPhone. It used a 4-digit PIN. If you're math-challenged, that's on average 4500 attempts to break it.

      I am math challenged. Please explain why 4500 and not 5000.

    42. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's kind of a Pyrrhic victory.

      Yeah, Apple didn't have to help them.

      But that's because Apple's phones were not secure.

      Absolute security is a myth. Don't forget that it took them almost four months of great--one might say herculean--effort to break into the phone. I doubt that most of us are going to get up to anything that would cause that level of curiosity by law enforcement about our phone habits.

    43. Re:Suggestions anyone? by KGIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What I'm curious about is if now Apple can be preemptive and force this to go to court and have the order slapped down. I'm not entirely sure of the model with writs, however. They *might* be able to now claim standing and go for a suit against the FBI specifically but I'm not sure how much that'd do unless it was considered precedent setting.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    44. Re:Suggestions anyone? by int19 · · Score: 1

      The iPhone 5C was released in 2013, which is plenty of time for Apple engineers to learn from their mistakes. From what I understand, the newer iPhones have better hardware encryption which prevent many types of attacks. This implies that there were security gaps identified later, and these have been designed out in later models.

    45. Re: Suggestions anyone? by jeepies · · Score: 5, Informative

      Public opinion and some big players were lined up against them. The FBI was expecting everyone to turn on Apple as being unpatriotic when the case came to light. That didn't happen. I think they realized that this would likely end up in the Supreme Court and not go the way they want, barring them from future action. If they weren't able to break into the phone, this at least let's them back out cleanly while neither appearing to back off and not going down the road to the Supreme Court.

      It's also possible they found a way into the phone that doesn't generalize, but provides the same way to back out without changing their position.

    46. Re:Suggestions anyone? by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      It used a 4-digit PIN. If you're math-challenged, that's on average 5000 attempts to break it.

      FTFY.

    47. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They just tried 12345. Worked in Spaceballs....

    48. Re:Suggestions anyone? by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      So, how does this now play for Apple, who banked on their phones being secure as a selling point?

      It's not a big problem if Apple's PR does their job (and they're very good at their job). The 5C didn't have the separate security chip and was known to be less secure for that reason. The 5S and newer do, and should be harder to penetrate. If the FBI had gotten into one of the latest models, that would have been a bigger issue.

      They still need to close the loophole where Apple can until update iOS on the phone without the user's explicit permission.
      The FBI's whole case was that Apple could crate a new, less secure, iOS and upload it to the phone without unlocking it or disturbing the contents in the process.

    49. Re: Suggestions anyone? by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The implication you're making is that:

      (a) they never needed to get into the phone because it was already broken; or
      (b) they lied that they broke into it and are now still unable to get into the phone, but won't admit it.

      Which pretty much requires them to be handing us a bold faced lie for no reason. The FBI could withdraw its request at any time without having to go to these lengths if they felt they would lose at the Supreme Court. And I don't see how public opinion or other corporations would be able to affect the Court appeal process. The appeals court judges and the justices are not, after all, elected. Presumably, the FBI would have opened the request weighing the chances of a Supreme Court appearance from the beginning.

      I'm no fan of the government, but lying in this manner, while colluding with a third party corporation, and a foreign one at that, seems like it would be a huge risk when a much smaller lie would have sufficed. The FBI could have simply backed off and worked to let the matter drop without setting a negative precedent. Seems too convoluted.

    50. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cause Apple just funneled the knowledge on how to unlock the phone through a third party so they could get out from the lawsuit without everyone knowing they helped the FBI

    51. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they unambiguously won't be in contempt of court when they close the vulnerability.

    52. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the 5s and newer still have the problem where the firmware can be reflashed without wiping the encryption keys. So, yes, when the most recent Apple phones are still vulnerable.

    53. Re:Suggestions anyone? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      What I'm curious about is if now Apple can be preemptive and force this to go to court and have the order slapped down.

      I doubt it. IANAL, but I think the plaintiff (FBI) can withdraw from the case at any time for any reason.

      [Apple] *might* be able to now claim standing and go for a suit against the FBI specifically but I'm not sure how much that'd do unless it was considered precedent setting.

      Standing for what? Apple hasn't really suffered any harm here. They can't file suit to force the FBI to do something they have already done, i.e., withdraw the demand to unlock the phone.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    54. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Additionally, they offered a solution in the vein of backing up the data to iCloud and then re-setting the password, however, the FBI, being ever so clever had already re-set the password, so they couldn't back up the data anymore.

      Apple was doing everything they felt they could do to help, after all the owner of the phone (the county) had consented to it. However, they didn't want to create an alternate OS whose only purpose was to make their real OS insecure. They especially didn't like the idea of being forced to make such an OS.

    55. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... once they found someone who could do it, it only took a week. ^_^

    56. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No security is perfect. This was a large government organization with physical possession of the phone paying a software agency with experience in digital forensics (in other words - retrieving data thought to be lost). It's not impossible to protect against this, but it can be trickier. From what I've read, the newer iPhones have more baked in security and would have been orders of magnitude harder to crack.

      The big victory here is that Apple wasn't forced by the courts to unlock this phone "just this one time." Had they been forced to do it, one time would have turned into two, three, five, a hundred, etc. There is no precedent for the next time when the FBI or other law enforcement agencies come to Apple (or other phone manufacturers) demanding that they weaken security because "terrorism."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    57. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's kind of a Pyrrhic victory.

      Yeah, Apple didn't have to help them.

      But that's because Apple's phones were not secure.

      It should be noted that this was an older model phone. For one, it did not have the secure enclave.

      I'm sure Apple is looking at its designs in a whole new light, and this year's iPhone 7 will have modifications to close some of the holes that are still present.

      New holes will be found of course, but as the saying goes, security is a process not a product.

    58. Re:Suggestions anyone? by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      It's absolutely trivial given an oscilloscope and some proper live-rail bit banging.

      This sounds interesting and I have a scope + old iDevice.. this seems like it might be a fun thing to try. Care to go into more detail?

    59. Re: Suggestions anyone? by jxander · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Bold faced lie" : yes
      "For no reason" : not necessarily

      Claiming to have unlocked the phone saves face, plus it spites Apple. Petty retribution for Apple's stubbornness.

      Really, there's no reason for the FBI to tell the truth. The inverse of what you said. Admitting they couldn't hack it, and admitting they knew the court case was bound to fail ... what does any of that accomplish?

      At this point, I'm assuming it's all lies, until the FBI either publishes the hack, or some info from within the phone that they now can access.

      --
      This signature is false.
    60. Re:Suggestions anyone? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Apple's selling point isn't that their phone is impossible to crack into - it's that they are not working with the US government to give secret back doors. It should surprise no one that technically sophisticated people can retrieve the information from a phone that they have physical possession of. If anything, it's kind of a feather in Apple's cap that it took so much work.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    61. Re:Suggestions anyone? by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      However, the problem in this case was you only had 9 guesses after which the data is deleted from the phone.

      I recall reading that if you power cycled the phone you reset the try count. I have no idea if that's true or not however.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    62. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple had a court order demanding they unlock the phone--Apple could easily request appellate court ruling on the validity of the order since it was legally entered.

    63. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. Now we know, there are at least three ways. Apple didn't say they do it, but we know they have by their admissions in court. We also know, is real is tighter with the Chinese then we are, the Chinese have a copy of the OS, since November, so no streach they know a way. And someone showed up at the FBI, and said try this. So maybe three ways, two for sure. But look at who has active copies of the OS for development. Would you trust all three with your valuables, or your life and freedom?

    64. Re:Suggestions anyone? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I'd be surprised if this ended up hurting Apple. For one thing, this model doesn't have the Secure Enclave feature in later phones. For another, security isn't a huge part of the sales pitch. Apple is as secure as anyone (well, except for the niche phones designed around security) and most people buy for features.

    65. Re:Suggestions anyone? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      That's true, but that doesn't mean they'll be able to in the future. At this point I tend to agree with Edward Snowden - the whole thing was a stunt on the government's part to establish a legal precedent for prying open commercial security in the court system. When it looked like the case was going bad they dropped it. Next time they think they have a favorable legal environment they'll be back.

    66. Re:Suggestions anyone? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      That's true, but you could make a device that's so difficult to hack it takes more resources than the government can assign outside the highest profile cases. They can't dedicate a month's worth of server farm power to every two bit drug dealer who wanders into their crosshairs.

    67. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wut if they hired snowden x.x

    68. Re: Suggestions anyone? by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They might well lie in order to avoid what they came to see as an inevitable loss in court. This was never about the one phone.

    69. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I asked a girl if I could stick it I. Her bum "just this one time"... I'm sure we all know how many times I really meant...

    70. Re: Suggestions anyone? by leptons · · Score: 2

      Do you believe everything the government tells you?

      Do you believe everything Apple tells you?

    71. Re:Suggestions anyone? by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      So, how does this now play for Apple, who banked on their phones being secure as a selling point?

      I am unaware of anyone who purchased an iPhone because of security. Not one.

      At most, anyone would think "Probably doesn't leak my personal data as much as a phone made by Google." But that would be the extent of their thinking.

    72. Re:Suggestions anyone? by plague911 · · Score: 1

      Its very possible that they will have a good idea. But gweihir's absolute certainty that Jobs' magical dick up his ass has absolute divine knowledge is rather silly.

    73. Re:Suggestions anyone? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It is pretty clear that the knew the security trade-offs they were making in that device. When you have the full design docs and the rationale behind them, it is not hard to figure out what attack vectors are there and how difficult they are to exploit. Sure, if the mystical "outside agency" had taken a few months to unlock the phone, then an unknown vulnerability (to Apple) would have been a real possibility, but this way it is almost certainly a simple attack against the hardware or a known vulnerability in the software and unless the phone designers at Apple are terminally incompetent, they know all of those. It _really_ is not rocket science, even if the FBI tried to make it look like it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    74. Re:Suggestions anyone? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt that was necessary.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    75. Re:Suggestions anyone? by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      And the FBI probably chose an Israeli company as they're not beholden to DMCA provisions. So now Apple cannot sue them to find out how they broke into the phone.

    76. Re:Suggestions anyone? by plague911 · · Score: 1

      " Given all that, it's highly probable that there's nothing incriminating on that phone at all." That statement is bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about. Its that simple.

    77. Re:Suggestions anyone? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The case proved that iPhones are (were) not secure, and revealed a plausible method to hack into them. Now we know that anyone with the Secret Key for signing software can hack into (some?) iPhones. I expect Apple's next move will be to lock down this hole, FBI's next move to look for a better test case to compel corporate obedience, and NSA's next move to get that signing key.

    78. Re:Suggestions anyone? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The remote update feature lets them upload and run arbitrary code onto any iPhone. That's a massive security flaw, but probably a needed one if you want your software kept up to date on security fixes.

    79. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're not lying about that. What they were lying about was that they needed Apple to do this in the first place on a not-current phone that doesn't have the most up to date protections in place.

      They wanted to use this sympathetic case to force the courts to ignore the law and the constitution to force Apple to invent something it didn't have--to do compulsory work against its still in other words. They were then going to do what they always do--use a case based on terrorism as a precedent to apply to regular non-terrorist crimes for which they'd never have got even that far.

      Their technique requires physical possession of a phone, and that's going to mean getting a warrant. It also precludes using it for mass spying. If they got what they wanted from Apple it would mean they could spy remotely with no warrant (well, not legally, but they'd do it anyway)

      When it became clear that there was a pretty good chance of the exact opposite happening they folded, just like they intended to do all along if this happened. They couldn't just drop it because even the American media isn't so desense and bought off as to let that go unquestioned, so they had to hack this phone, most likely using a technique they had or had lined up all along. (That would be the lie part)

      This is also how the government kept gun control cases out of the Supreme Court for decades, by strategically folding when they knew they were going to lose, because they believed, correctly, that what they were doing was unconstitutional and they didn't want to get called on it. It's a slimy technique executed by slimy people. Such is the state of our 'justice system'.

    80. Re:Suggestions anyone? by meglon · · Score: 1

      A quick call to tech support gave them the idea to make sure the device was turned on.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    81. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      You don't know what you are talking about. Its that simple.

      Then prove him wrong. As he said, it was his work phone, left at the office. They destroyed, physically, their personal phones. The recent bombers in Belgium used frequently disposed of burner phones.

      He listed out his reasoning, two which you only respond with 'bullshit' and the personal attack of him not knowing what he's talking about.

      Well fine. Provide reasoning, evidence, whatever.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    82. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Zwaxy · · Score: 1

      Because 4 digit personal identification PIN numbers cannot start with a 0, presumably?

      People who live in math challenged houses shouldn't throw math challenged accusations.

    83. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'm curious about is if now Apple can be preemptive and force this to go to court and have the order slapped down. I'm not entirely sure of the model with writs, however. They *might* be able to now claim standing and go for a suit against the FBI specifically but I'm not sure how much that'd do unless it was considered precedent setting.

      Nope, it'd be tantamount to an advisory ruling, and even if Apple did pay their lawyers to do it, and somehow get it in front of a judge, who did issue such a ruling, the FBI would just find some way for the next ruling to be distinguished sufficiently to get an appeal.

      Frankly, they'd be better off paying their lobbyists or their engineers.

    84. Re:Suggestions anyone? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      Also, it's worth pointing out that we don't actually know that the FBI did get Farook's phone decrypted. Odds are they never cared about that anyway, but only about setting the precedent by requiring Apple to help them, then when they saw the ruling was likely to go against them decided back down.

      Frankly I'm a little worried that they did find something on the phone. In a few days they may go: "See, we did find something, but because Apple resisted us the bad guys got away!"

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    85. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Z80a · · Score: 1

      I bet on a iphone emulator of sorts running the image disk being bruteforced.

    86. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A11 teh seekretz wood b en Roossia & Cheena, jus az teh olde seekretz h3 haz R. sknowdenz he sKR3wwed 'Murica & nosebody g3tz 1T. lulz

    87. Re:Suggestions anyone? by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Just because someone hacks you doesn't mean they're willing to tell you how they did it. That's the difference between a bug bounty and someone randomly hacking you.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    88. Re: Suggestions anyone? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The government could have hit Apple with a NSL or FISA warrant. Instead they used the open court system to state their case and get a warrant. The simple truth is Apple knew they could have told the court that they could not give the government what they want because it was technically impossible. Since they did not take this option means they were well aware they could circumvent the security and give the FBI what they wanted. If they could do it so could anyone else with the necessary resources.

    89. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1, Troll

      Odds are they never cared about that anyway, but only about setting the precedent by requiring Apple to help them,

      I know it's never been a popular view on Slashdot, but perhaps if we all just loosen our tinfoil hats a bit, we can see Ockham's favored solution.

      I see an investigative team who did their research, and realized that the only thing standing between them and potential evidence was a stupid passcode on the phone. They knew there was an attack vector there, because later models added hardware security. All they needed was for Apple to sign a tool to work around the lock. That meant asking for a court order, because there is no alternative. Now someone else has come forward with an alternative, and the team is still open to it. It seems to work, so the request for Apple's help can be dropped.

      That scenario requires me to believe that the FBI has assigned their qualified personnel to a high-profile case. It also requires me to believe that the FBI's personnel are doing their sworn duty to seek legal justice. In short, it requires me to only believe that people are individually doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing.

      The conspiracy theory means there is a team at the FBI seeking to undermine American freedoms, and that they operate with high enough authority and wide enough acceptance that they can interfere with any convenient case and effectively obstruct justice for a few months while they submit a bogus court motion that may or may not be granted, and if so, may or may not set a useful precedent.

      For that scenario, I am expected to believe in a cabal of high-ranking FBI officials who are all individually working utterly contrary to their sworn duty, with no oversight, and that none of them (or any subordinates who know of them) have ever had the moral fortitude to say "this is wrong".

      Sorry, folks, but this is reality, not the X-files. There are no like-minded high-ranking alien conspiracies in the government. There are only people, doing their best to do what is right.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    90. Re:Suggestions anyone? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What I'm curious about is if now Apple can be preemptive and force this to go to court and have the order slapped down.

      Probably not. When you sue someone, you have a lot of freedom to withdraw a lawsuit. For example, if Apple requested a summary judgement or something, they could just withdraw the case and the court would have no more jurisdiction. It's kind of unfair, but well

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    91. Re:Suggestions anyone? by adamstew · · Score: 1

      The "bad guys" in this case were already dead. They died the day they committed their crimes.

    92. Re: Suggestions anyone? by jeepies · · Score: 5, Informative

      The bold face lie by the FBI wouldn't be for no reason. The discussion around this case has largely been around privacy, encryption and what the government should have access to. But there's a much bigger issue in play that hasn't gotten a lot of coverage.

      There's no law that says Apple must provide decryption of the phone. And since they're not in possession of the data (it's on the phone), they're not required to hand it over based on a warrant as they would be under the Telecommunications act. So what to do?

      Enter the All Writs Act of 1789. Basically it says courts can issue writs (judicial orders) for anything necessary within their jurisdiction. This is what was being used to order Apple to develop a version of iOS that would not erase the phone no matter how many PINs were typed in, effectively allowing the bypassing of the encryption.

      Now the All Wits Act hasn't been used that way historically. And there's a huge question as to whether you can order a company or a person to do work like that for free. Normally decrypting a phone would be a service the government would pay a contractor to do or have an in house capability for. Here there trying to compel an unwilling party to work for them for free.

      It's a fair bet that's unconstitutional. (4th amendment). The government has used the All Writs Act a couple times this way in the past few years in relation to mobile devices. It's pretty clear they don't want that shaky legal ground tested in the Supreme Court with public opinion against them.

    93. Re: Suggestions anyone? by jeepies · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That should say 5th amendment; not 4th. "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    94. Re:Suggestions anyone? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      The "bad guys" being other members of ISIS.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    95. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They certainly can start with 0.

    96. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Looks as though the public firestorm caused the FBI to back down on its main request, which was to force Apple to give them a way of breaking into whatever other iPhones they would in the future want to, starting with a specified list of 12 devices that had been seized in drug cases.

    97. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It was an older phone model though. My guess is that they cloned the phone. Possibly someone in Apple could have done this, if the FBI thought to ask for this instead of demanding to get a legal precedent instead.

    98. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes, Santa Claus said I should trust them. I saw him in a black helicopter helping the easter bunny lay eggs.

    99. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Actually the majority of people seemed to be against Apple here, at least at the start. A lot of political candidates were trying to make points by painting Apple as helping ISIS. When other big tech companies came out in support of Apple it caused a lot of people to rethink their positions. Sort of easy to accuse Apple of being part of the cultural wars, gay CEO, hipster products, hiding tax money overseas, etc. But it's harder to do that when boring old Microsoft says the same thing.

    100. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      They don't want a warrant though. A warrant doesn't apply in this case as there's nothing to search. They needed a special court order to compel Apple to assist them because no precedent for it within normal legal channels.

    101. Re:Suggestions anyone? by meerling · · Score: 1

      The only secure system is the one that's completely destroyed, and even then...
      The question is how much effort, time, and money the crackers are willing to throw at it.

      On Apples side, it may not be a total victory, but it's no where near pyrrhic. Apple hasn't been force to develop cracking software for it's own product, which is exactly what they were fighting about. Although I don't consider this a total win, as that would include setting a clear legal precedent that companies do not have to develop new products or capabilities to provide 'reasonable assistance' to law enforcement, I do feel they caused the FBI to retreat from the conflict because the FBI realized they'd loose this fight and such a precedent would be established, but to their embarrassment.

      Obviously, ianal.

    102. Re:Suggestions anyone? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It cannot have been very difficult, it was far too fast for that.

      You don't suppose that company had already developed the methodology and technology to do it, do you? Butchers generally make sausage faster than florists.

      Having seen the pathetic lies and conduct of multiple levels of German government and law enforcement over the mass sexual assaults of the last few months I can understand how you might suspect the default behavior is to lie. You can't count on that though.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    103. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Alypius · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but I thought that Apple would have been compensated for their efforts in complying with the AWA-order? I don't remember anything about them doing it for free.

    104. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Alypius · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points for you. I've pointed out in other articles that FBI Director Comey is one of the few good guys left in government. I still think he was wrong to pursue this strategy, but "wrong" doesn't necessarily mean "evil," as we see too often in our political discourse. Well done.

    105. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      creating a circumvention only needed to be able to run code on the phone. because 5c. the amount of tries on 5c is sw controlled. the israeli company likely has abootloader hack and altered fw.

    106. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the company alredy had bootloader hack and that was all that was needed.. 5c doesnt have the wipe function in hw so you can try as many times as you want if you break one cpu instruction....

    107. Re: Suggestions anyone? by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      And there's a huge question as to whether you can order a company or a person to do work like that for free.

      So you are saying that if the government paid prevailing value for doing the work, then it would be okay?

    108. Re: Suggestions anyone? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Informative

      Everyone knew. it is 5 c. no secure enclave. the wipe is in sw. if you have bootloader hacked or bl certs it is easy. why seemingly nobody on slashdot understands this i cannot nderstand.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    109. Re: Suggestions anyone? by valdezjuan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Without having the details, it's hard to gauge the true security of the phones. Perhaps the Israeli company used a scanning electron microscope and attacked the actual crypto chip, there are some risks associated with that approach but it's far from impossible and probably not something you would want to experiment with on a phone you've yelled about being 'OMG, national security' about. That makes the going to someone with experience a good thing. I have a hunch the Feds had this planned before any of this began. They hoped apple would cave but always had a backup plan, they just wanted the precedent before resorting to plan B. When it got to the point that the case was going to be heard and might go against them, they dropped it and went to the backup. At least that's what I would have done in their place.

    110. Re: Suggestions anyone? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      c: they found someone who had a bootloader hack that then makes it possible to alter the fw to have unlimited attempts because on 5c that is a sw check. the key comes from hw after giving the pin but the 10 attempts limit on 5c is in sw.

      really that is the only thing that needed hacking to achieve this. it doesnt work for newer iphones.

      both the fbi and apple have been full of bs talk in regards to this.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    111. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the possible angles for attack are huge, It is possible they are using one of the known vulnerabilities, but it is just as likely they are using something unknown to apple as their isn't a hope in hell that ANY company can have figured out all the weaknesses in such a complex product. Security firms like the one that did this specialise in digging through these products to find vulnerabilities and weaknesses that they can monetise.

    112. Re: Suggestions anyone? by p.g.king · · Score: 1

      It's pretty clear they don't want that shaky legal ground tested in the Supreme Court with public opinion against them.

      I think you are missing the point, the original statement of no reason was that there were easier alternatives to a lie to reach the same end. No need to setup this elaborate lie with a commercial third party in another part of the world, with all the risk that the lie could be exposed - you'll have little or no control over what that foreign party does.

      As to if public opinion is truly against them, I would unfortunately suspect the vast majority of people don't care one way or another and a fairly large proportion of those don't really understand the issues at stake.

    113. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have the right tools, couldn't you just read/clone the encrypted memory? the 4-5 digit PIN code should not be a problem for a brute force attack?

    114. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being secure as a selling point?

      As much as that drone they're now selling in their stores which touts itself as a vehicle that "avoid obstacles automatically."

      Every tech nowadays needs an asterisk on very claim. Heck, some of the biggest complaints about smart phones is they can't make a decent phone call--come on! it's a phone!

      And reminds me of the saying: "an all weather tire is excellent at nothing".

    115. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the FBI had gotten into one of the latest models

      Actually, what do you think the FBI is doing now (and into the future). The Apple request was not legal testing, nor ethics testing. It is strategy. Now that they know Apple will not cooperate, it's time to buy every new phone with the SE chip and let the real white hackers go to town.

      In some ways, the gov't won and Apple lost the PR battle, the iPhone is NOT secure (what is?), and if Apple issues a new better iPhone with better security, the gov't going to be watching over their shoulders in standards committees waiting to crack it. And can use this excuse to justify a team of hackers. And the criminals will think their secure still. Win-win for the FBI I'd say.

    116. Re:Suggestions anyone? by GrandCow · · Score: 1

      That's the same argument that any company at all could make to sell a new model. All the Apple bashers manage to miss this point completely. New versions of hardware and software = better security (most times). Bug fixes, zero-day resolutions, new ideas in hardware like secure enclave, shit gets better as people have ideas on how to secure stuff better.

      But lets just pretend that Apple is the only company that ever wants to sell new models of stuff, and is also the only company that ever improves their stuff. Lets also pretend that Apple actually doesn't want to protect your privacy, that they haven't improved their security before this was ever even an issue.

      Also lets continue to pretend that Apple was the company that brought this up publically, and not the FBI. The FBI definitely didn't make this case public, hoping that public opinion would make Apple buckle, after Apple filed a motion to keep it quiet and between the courts and the FBI/Apple.

      http://bgr.com/2016/02/19/appl...

      I'm sure you'll say that bgr.com isn't a good source, that's fine. The NY Times is the quote they use in that article.

      Feel free to hate on Apple all you want, but feel free to go fuck yourself too.

      --
      "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    117. Re:Suggestions anyone? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      So, how does this now play for Apple, who banked on their phones being secure as a selling point?

      Yep, Apple screwed themselves hard here.

      We've known for some time that Apple's security is largely a product of marketing over engineering with the fact that many times the phone has been jailbroken, as more than one point just by visiting a web site but here because they made such a huge spectacle over it, it cant be buried on the back page of some obscure specialist publication.

      So Apple has won a pyrrhic victory but lost a lot more.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    118. Re: Suggestions anyone? by jeepies · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope, they've not been compensated. At least according to the court transcripts:

      THE COURT: Look, your language doesn't invoke the All Writs Act, I get that, but in terms of the burden, first, you haven't challenged it and you still haven't explained why not. Second, you provided language for reasons I understand about consistency, but you also did not say anything about burdens beyond the immediate expense.
      If you are saying we want to craft language that is going to say here's exactly what we have to do, you require, if I'm not mistaken -- I don't have the language in front of me. Do you require compensation?

      MR. ZWILLINGER: No, we've never required compensation.

      THE COURT: But you can, and you don't do anything about that.
      I mean, the point is well taken that Apple is a pretty darn big company, maybe they don't care so much about the costs of these 70 things in the big picture. It just seems to me that there's a dog that didn't bark here.

      MR. ZWILLINGER: I think the way to address this, Your Honor, is the following.
      Right now, Apple is aware that customer data is under siege from a variety of different directions. Never has the privacy and security of customer data been as important as it is now. And, in fact, Apple built an operating system which is why we're only talking here about IOS 7 systems, operating systems IOS 8 and IOS 9, that puts Apple in a position where it cannot do this, that is, going forward with 390 percent of the devices involved, Apple cannot perform these services. So, Apple has taken itself out of the middle of being in a position where it can be used as an attack vector or in any way to compromise the security and privacy of customer devices.
      So, when the court asks Apple today does the All Writs Act provide authority to force it to do this, Apple says no, it does not, because what we are being forced to do is expert forensic services, we're being forced to become an agent of law enforcement and we cannot be forced to do that with our old devices or with our new devices.


      The 390 percent thing is weird, but that's what's in the transcript.

      Full Transcript: http://www.scribd.com/doc/296323783/102615-Apple

    119. Re:Suggestions anyone? by N1AK · · Score: 1

      The most likely method for defeating the security on the 5c revolves around removing the software restriction on how quickly you can enter unlock codes; this weakness has already been removed from newer Apple devices.

    120. Re:Suggestions anyone? by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Better than you with Uncle Sam's cock rammed down your throat.

    121. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a 100% secure platform. Every time someone makes such a boast the system gets hacked - usually very publicly.

      Sounds like it's a lot cheaper to boast about your platform instead of paying bug bounties, doesn't it?

      Whey they hack you they usually steal, destroy or lock up in an encrypted vault and hold for ransom something you are really going to miss. If you pay bounties they tell you about the hacks and give you a roadmap of how your developers can reproduce the bug. Trust me, bounties are better...

    122. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because iPhone 5C is an old model and they already went through the whole "how can we improve upon security of iPhone 5" when they developed iPhone 6 several years ago. Every improvement they made for iPhone 6 corresponds to a weakness they already know about for iPhone 5. I expect that they know some ways the iPhone 6 can be improved upon by now too.

    123. Re:Suggestions anyone? by N1AK · · Score: 1

      That's a ridiculous strawman rather than a fair summary of the position of people who believe the FBI had an ulterior motive; which rather undermines itself.

      If you're the FBI and you can see an approaching issue where you won't be able to get into communication devices due to the security measures that manufacturers are putting in place, then it is entirely rational to want to establish a precedent where you can compel the firms to assist you in defeating that security in future. This isn't some crazy multi-step conspiracy theory, the benefit of doing this is clear and direct.

      Even if it was a more convoluted plot you only have to look at some of the batshit crazy things things government agencies have done, and have gotten away with, to see just how weak your claim that this isn't credible because the US government doesn't do X-files" type stuff: The CIA did run brothels and inject people with LSD in San Francisco against their will for example.

    124. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Mouldy · · Score: 1

      "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

      - Hanlon's razor

    125. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone tried to recharge it on a pc at which point they noticed that the phone was jailbroken and configured to automatically mount root as USB drive on physical connection to any device.

    126. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you advertising your lack of knowledge on security?

    127. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4500 or 5000?
      When bruteforcing something supposed to be 'hard' you skip obvious stuff like 0000 and 1234. People don't pick those for 'hard'. And you do early attempts with some obvious things like birthdays (or in this case - important numbers from his holy book) because people sometimes thinks such numbers are 'good enough'. Only math/crypto nerds use those truly random passwords - so on average, you need less than 5000 tries for a 4-digit combination. Many a user-settable PIN is below 1231 (or 3112, depending on preferred date format.)

      So many people are not math nerds, and thinks nobody knows their pet cats birthday anyway (despite posting details of that event on facebook...) Well, it don't matter which birthday, only the fact that it _is_ a date. There are only 366 of those. The subset who uses dates can be cracked in 183 tries on average. Somewhat less considering that pets (and people too) are more likely to give birth in the spring.

    128. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an apple fan boi. But I am also an engineer. Usually people don't learn from mistakes, especially if they do not know about the "mistakes".

    129. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Find the rail that's responsible for sending out write signals/data using the oscilloscope, give it a dirty signal so the signal to wipe is fucked every time. Guess away.

      34 guesses later (and the moron getting half-inebriated again for state-dependent memory) I'm in.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    130. Re:Suggestions anyone? by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      That was never really the point. Nobody doubted the software only lock on the iPhone5 could be defeated. There was already lots of evidence out there to suggest that at least some agency had already done so. Apple's argument was that they want to be able to make a secure product and in fact do, the iPhone 6. It has a hardware authentication solution.

      What they were trying to prevent was a legal precedent being set that would effectively prevent manufacturers from building secure products because complying with court orders would necessitate they have a purpose built back door that at least they have access / knowledge of. Apple and all of us know some organization with the capabilities of Cellebrite or maybe some unknown guy can potentially discover a backdoor or a deliberately introduced security flaw.

      The iPhone 5 has no such deliberate flaw, it simply isn't and sufficiently robust solution or it has vulnerabilities that were actually mistakes or oversights, that hardware based system in the 6 may make it almost impossible to access a locked phone with a strong password without destroying the data. Apple wants to keep it that way, and the way this played out so far lets them do that.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    131. Re:Suggestions anyone? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      The phone in question was a 5c. Apparently, whatever was done won't work on the 6 or future phones.

    132. Re:Suggestions anyone? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      That's been my thinking. It's the most obvious route I see. I'd sure like to know why the FBI didn't think of it, and why they don't have the capacity to do it.

    133. Re: Suggestions anyone? by jafiwam · · Score: 2

      I could be wrong, but I thought that Apple would have been compensated for their efforts in complying with the AWA-order? I don't remember anything about them doing it for free.

      They might compensate Apple for the time and materials to get the job done.

      What they won't do, is compensate Apple for the loss of reputation and loss of future sales they suffer because they cooperated.

    134. Re:Suggestions anyone? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      They still need to close the loophole where Apple can until update iOS on the phone without the user's explicit permission.

      It's not a security loophole if the security chip works correctly. For example, assume the data on flash is protetected with AES256. The security chip receives a pin and either emits an AES256 key or a failure code. If it gets 10 failed attempts, then the security chip erases the stored AES256 key.

      At that point it doesn't matter what the main OS does, so it doesn't matter if the OS is changed.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    135. Re:Suggestions anyone? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      The very fact that there was a court order and a big discussion over this issue demonstrates that "physical access = all bets are off and security is toast" has come a long way... and is about to go by the wayside.

      With proper design and some encryption, physical access is not going to be good enough anymore.

    136. Re:Suggestions anyone? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, this is the iPhone 5c -- not the 5s. That means it has an A6 processor, not an A7. The A6 doesn't have the "secure enclave" cryptographic co-processor and storage. This enables a number of possible attacks, although none that a casual hacker could mount. For example the encryption key, which is stored in the secure enclave in the A7, could be read from flash or intercepted as it is transferred over the pins to the A6 processor. In the A7 all the magic happens inside the chip packaging. That kind of attack is not script-kiddy stuff, but it's not beyond what a specialist could do.

      The "fix" the FBI was demanding in this case would work equally well on an A6 or A7, so one possible explanation for demanding that fix is that the methods used on this phone wouldn't work on an iPhone 5s or later.

      Of course since we don't know how it was done we can't rule out the possibility the company the FBI used has an attack that works on A7 as well as A6 CPUs. There'd still be good reasons to want to have the security-weakened version of iOS. The weakened iOS would be quick and cheap enough to use routinely, even speculatively. What's more the legal precedent could be use against literally any device maker who sold stuff in the US.

      Inferring motivations from actions, I'd guess that the FBI knew all along that it could get into this particular phone, but wanted the weakened iOS and legal precedent that came along with it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    137. Re: Suggestions anyone? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      "But the 5s and newer still have the problem where the firmware can be reflashed without wiping the encryption keys. So, yes, when the most recent Apple phones are still vulnerable."

      doesnt matter when the keys are in the chip and the chip enforces the 10 time limit. which is not on 5c. everyone knew that if you had bootloader hack or the bl keys, you could defeat it on 5c.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    138. Re:Suggestions anyone? by hey! · · Score: 1

      It plays this way: if you care about three letter agencies reading what's on your phone, trade in your old A6 CPU iPhone (like the San Bernadino one) for a new one with an A7 processor because the A7 contains the new "secure enclave" crypto co-processor.

      Of course we don't know whether the FBI can't get into an A7 based phone, but the whole point of that secure enclave is that it makes it much, much harder to crack a device, even if you have a team of electronics and system experts with a well-equipped lab.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    139. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      And there's a huge question as to whether you can order a company or a person to do work like that for free.

      So you are saying that if the government paid prevailing value for doing the work, then it would be okay?

      What would be the "prevailing value" for writing a one-off (*) version of an OS?

      (*) or not quite so one-off looking at the number of cases where LEOs have made requests following the precedent.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    140. Re: Suggestions anyone? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if its possible to have less than zero percent trust in our 'national security' agencies, this is what we are left with, at this point.

      they can sing and dance about all they want. but what they say is not trustable and no one should base any conclusions at all on their 'info'. its all about what they want and they'll lie, cheat or steal to get it.

      common criminals who think they are on the 'right' side but have lost their way big-time. that's what the fbi, nsa, cia and all the rest are, at this point.

      way to get the trust of the american (and ROW) people, guys! good show. good job.

      lol. bunch of idiots, in reality. they could not have ruined their own rep any more if they tried.

      one good thing: the young people are seeing the country for what it is and they will grow up mistrusting their leaders. THAT'S A GOOD THING - it shows that we are finally starting to realize what the reality of the world is; and not the disney fairy stories that we are taught when we grow up. people in the LEO field are not afraid to lie or cheat or steal to get what they want. they are thugs with badges and inferiority complexes. and they do NOT have our best interests at heart!

      so, its good that we as a people are seeing how rotton our leaders and top secret orgs are. its good that the laundry gets aired every now and then.

      don't trust the man. it was true decades ago and its still true, today.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    141. Re: Suggestions anyone? by sh00z · · Score: 1

      d. They performed visible and UV-light inspections of the screen, combined the results (most-frequently touched areas) with personal data known about the shooter and human psychological quirks about choosing a PIN, and executed a smudge attack.

    142. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI apparently use an Israeli firm that provides software / services for hacking iPhones. They new this (as did Apple) before they took them to court.

    143. Re:Suggestions anyone? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      When you say 'rail', I start to wonder if you actually did this. The two communicating parts that you're talking about are on the same SoC. The secure enclave is given a key to try. If it's wrong, it increments a counter. If it's correct, it resets the counter. If the counter reaches a threshold value, it deletes the key that's stored internally to the secure enclave. That key never exists outside of the secure enclave. You need a bit more than an an oscilloscope to mess up a signal travelling inside a chip.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    144. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      It takes bullshit to spot bullshit. In this case, however, the only bullshit you're seeing is a bit that fell over your eye.

    145. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Apple already released a phone with better security -- the iPhone 5s (and all later models). This happened several years ago. You really should pay attention to reality, if you're going to bother spouting off.

    146. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      If you're the FBI and you can see an approaching issue where you won't be able to get into communication devices due to the security measures that manufacturers are putting in place, then it is entirely rational to want to establish a precedent where you can compel the firms to assist you in defeating that security in future. This isn't some crazy multi-step conspiracy theory, the benefit of doing this is clear and direct.

      Rational, perhaps, but certainly not direct. Your assumption is that the person making this realization has the authority to initiate a court order before anybody else involved says "Wait, that's not our job."

      If I personally was the FBI, it's be easy. If the FBI were a single coherent unit, it'd be easy. However, the FBI is a large organization of many people, each one with their own priorities and oversight. Any one of them could have raised an alarm about perverting the goal of the investigation, if that were really the case.

      Even if it was a more convoluted plot you only have to look at some of the batshit crazy things things government agencies have done, and have gotten away with, to see just how weak your claim that this isn't credible because the US government doesn't do X-files" type stuff: The CIA did run brothels and inject people with LSD in San Francisco against their will for example.

      That makes sense, though. It was directly related to the goals of project MKULTRA, and apart from the issue of ethics, MKULTRA fit within the CIA's mission. A similar statement for the FBI is that they investigate prominent activists. That's within their mission, and at every step of the chain of command, there's a reasonable justification.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    147. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah blah blah.

    148. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Your reasoning is faulty. There is no jailbreak that can affect a device which is locked without wiping the device, and certainly not the drive-by versions. Also, Apple's marketing has never referred to the security of the device, except perhaps in passing. The percentage of their customers with enough knowledge of this case to care, but not understand the difference, is so small as to be statistically irrelevant.

    149. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple doesn't bank on their phones being secure as a selling point. Apple banks on their phones being perceived as "cool" by tech laypeople.

      It doesn't even matter what kind of product we're talking about. Pick anything that is used by the wide public. Is a significant market leader known for being secure? No. Being secure isn't where the money is.

      This will have no perceivable impact on Apple sales.

      Imagine if we lived in the kind of society where it did have an impact. Would you have even heard of Microsoft Windows? Or would it had disappeared into obscurity twenty years ago? iOS is the Windows of this decade. Apple is perfectly safe from whatever flaws that nerds point out.

    150. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This year's iPhone 7 will have the new super duper sauce. Line up at the store to get one now. Be the first on your block.

    151. Re:Suggestions anyone? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying there's a conspiracy of any sort. I'm just saying that I think the FBI sees an ongoing problem with their inability to get information from mobile devices of suspects, and an opportunity to set a precedent that will help them. The ACLU, et al, cherry pick the cases they choose to push in order to get favorable precedents all the time. I see no reason why the FBI isn't smart enough to try to do the same. And their attempt to do so isn't "evil", it's just how the game is played. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't point out what they're doing, and courts shouldn't consider the long-term precedential aspects of their decisions (they absolutely should!).

    152. Re:Suggestions anyone? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Yes. However, it's still worth pointing out that the software on the security chip is also likely updatable. Hopefully it only accepts updates when the user's password is provided. If it doesn't work that way, I expect that it will after the next update, unless that's technically infeasible for some reason, in which case it'll work that way in the next generation of devices.

    153. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Kecantikan+alami · · Score: 1

      So, how does this now play for Apple Cara menghilangkan jerawat

    154. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boycott Pa-e-SWINE, ISIS, CAIR, Al Qada, Taliban, Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood, Fascist Iran, Al Nusra.

    155. Re:Suggestions anyone? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Given unlimited resources I imagine they can probably crack any consumer level device eventually.

      The FBI doesn't have unlimited resources. Certainly not unlimited resources to devote to a single device.

      I'm not claiming that consumer devices will ever be secure against nation states willing to throw millions at a single device. That's foolishness. But I think consumer devices can be sufficiently secure that governments will generally not be willing to spend what it takes. That matters because there are other large organizations which, while they don't have pockets as deep as national governments, can also throw large amounts of money and expertise against the problem, and even if we assume all governments are 100% on the side of the angels, we still want our devices to be fairly secure against other potential intruders.

    156. Re:Suggestions anyone? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that if Apple knows what they are doing, they can try and push for a legal precedent to use against the government in the future.

      Maybe. Declarative judgments of that sort are often hard to get because courts only like to look at specific cases where there is specific harm.

      However, what is certain is that "Apple is unable to decrypt devices, period" has become an explicit security requirement for all new designs. I'm sure in the past it was a requirement only in the way that all good security designers try to build systems that they themselves cannot break, not a core goal. In most systems, if you've ensured that only someone with access to the signing keys can compromise it, and you've done a good job of security those keys, you figure you're done. Not any more.

    157. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My 5 digit PIN starts with a zero.

    158. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secure Enclave is the new marketing buzzword.

      Earlier examples:

      Altivec Unit
      RISC
      SCSI

    159. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to fellate Apple, but don't forget to fuck yourself, too.

      It's cult followers who feel the need to label outsiders as "haters."

    160. Re: Suggestions anyone? by orev · · Score: 1

      No. NSL or FISA is just for information. FBI was trying to compel Apple to do some work/make actual system changes that would allow them to get into the phone. That's why they went back to the All Writs Act, which allows law enforcement to compel an action. Making someone do something is not even close to the same thing as just requesting information.

    161. Re: Suggestions anyone? by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Not sure if that would hold. The government can claim that they will pay, but require you to do it anyway (wether you want to or not).

      Pretty sure I saw it floated as possibly a 1st amendment issue since code has been equated to speech and in this case the government is attempting to force code to be written.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    162. Re:Suggestions anyone? by tibit · · Score: 1

      This was an older design, pre-security-enclave. From 5s onwards, it'd be impossible to do without loading Apple-signed updated malicious firmware.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    163. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new secure Enclave riscy altivec power PC chip. Line up at the store, where geniuses who think different will take your money and dispense your new shiny. Keep it in a $80 Otter case so you can trade up again next year

    164. Re: Suggestions anyone? by tibit · · Score: 1

      That phone predates the current security-enclave-based architecture. No "crypto chip" to attack, it's all software-based there.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    165. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure to include "secure Enclave" at least once in every paragraph. This is important so that our reviewers can be certain to compensate you properly. The marketing standards require that: at least one mention per paragraph.

    166. Re: Suggestions anyone? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      They couldn't just drop it for no reason if they thought they weren't going to win at the Supreme Court. They were already pushing the narrative that there was a national security interest, that maybe they can prevent another terrorist attack, think of the children, etc. They can't just back off that once they say those are the reasons. They needed a conclusion, they couldn't just drop it. Now they have a conclusion, so now they'll back off. I fully expect to hear no more about any information that they may have gotten from that phone.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    167. Re:Suggestions anyone? by doccus · · Score: 1

      If they had the ability to do this all along, then what the hell was the whole case about? Something other, I would think... Or they're lying entirely...

    168. Re: Suggestions anyone? by doccus · · Score: 1

      Do you believe everything the government tells you?

      In this case.. definitely not. "Poisoning the well", I would think, because they couldn't get what they wanted.

    169. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Munchr · · Score: 1

      The phone is only as secure as your pass-phrase. A 4 digit pass-phrase consisting of 0-9 is in no way secure.

    170. Re:Suggestions anyone? by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Or even more obviously, the operating system is responsible for connecting the input method to the security hardware... so if the operating system is able to for example log the touch screen presses...

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    171. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that if you use the fingerprint scanner, well, the FBI already has your fingerprints, most likely.

    172. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One must never, ever trust a government, especially one's own - that's the one most likely to do you damage.

    173. Re:Suggestions anyone? by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Watch it be something tenuously connected to Belgium.

    174. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given unlimited resources I imagine they can probably crack any consumer level device eventually.

      No one has unlimited resources, especially not to hack at something indefinitely. The FBI certainly has a finite budget (to be spent on many things other than one investigation), and if it takes long enough, the data stops being useful.

    175. Re:Suggestions anyone? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      the possible angles for attack are huge,

      Not really, you forget that little aspect of the economic advantage of the attacker: They always will go the easiest route because there is no money in making things harder for yourself. Sure, there is some fuzziness in that, but not a lot. While Apple may not know the exact route the attackers took, they will know a relatively small set of viable, cheap attacks and the attackers will have used one of those.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    176. Re: Suggestions anyone? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      If the government is forced to just hire Apple to do the work like a normal company, wouldn't Apple have the option of declining the job?

      Not sure whether freedom of association would seem to apply.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    177. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "An excellent idea" != "absolute certainty"

      troll harder

    178. Re:Suggestions anyone? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Why is that a problem?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    179. Re: Suggestions anyone? by rch7 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Apple is holy and invincible, and its phones are unhackable marvel. Every Apple fanboy knows it. Even some lame 5C that doesn't even have "secure anclave" to pretend any security illusion, must be unhackable, because it is made by saints. It is total lie that Apple helped authorities in the past to disable its super-secure screen lockers. Keep your faith unshaken, don't listen to infidels!

    180. Re:Suggestions anyone? by axewolf · · Score: 1

      Security is not the selling point, trendiness is, the interface for most consumers to security is trendiness

    181. Re: Suggestions anyone? by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      I'm betting that they'll announce that they've "found" information on the phone that could have helped stop the Brussels attacks or something similar so that they can claim Apple's uncooperativeness cost lives and make some more emotional pleas the next time some corporation has the audacity to say no to the feds.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    182. Re:Suggestions anyone? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I want mine to be secure against the common asshole. I don't think I could ever afford one to keep the Feds out of it. Sure the FBI doesn't really have unlimited funds but they can secure a very significant amount if necessary for an important enough case. I remember a story I heard once back in the 90's about a case where the Feds had an e-mail that one mob bosses wife had sent to another bosses wife. It was encrypted and they figured it had some information the really needed in a RICO case they were investigating. They couldn't read it so they hired a special contractor to crack the encryption. They ended up brute forcing it after spending a large sum of money on computer time with a Cray supercomputer and wallah! They had the mob bosses wife's secret Italian Cookie recipe! Very expensive mistake and this is why they hate encryption. I don't know for sure if this is a true story but I think it could very well be.

    183. Re:Suggestions anyone? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Everything is relative. In the scheme of things like a terrorist investigation it's as near to unlimited as matters. They simply keep going back and getting more funds as needed to continue the job. I'm sure if it was some minor jack off drug dealer they wouldn't bother.

    184. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Secure Enclave trademarked? It's certainly the favored new Apple Buzzword.

    185. Re: Suggestions anyone? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The FBI has shuffled Apple to the side. In the current case the owner of the phone gave the FBI permission to search the phone. No warrant required. The Court order would have required Apple to provide resources to satisfy the Court order. Of course Apple made it seem like they would have to shut down the company to supply the necessary resources which was grade A bullshit. Now if a similar case comes up and the owner of the phone does not willingly give permission to search their phone contents the FBI will need a search warrant. If they get a search warrant the FBI apparently now has the ability to do so without Apple's help or approval. Apple can now claim they valiantly fought off the government but their claims of security have taken a hit.

    186. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You read my thoughts. I'll go one step further though and add that I expect a new law to be in the works. Once the FBI finds the key information, some Congress critter champion will introduce the law and the media will cheer it on.

    187. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would make more sense that the goal would be to get a new law on the books. Apple has the means to take the old law to the supreme Court, fight it and win. This would have been the worst case as it would show the unconstitutionality of what they were demanding. But this was a propaganda piece all along. A new law will be introduced that will allow the feds to force companies to do what it wanted Apple to do. If it passes it will be used on smaller companies first who will just comply because it is in the law and their lawyers will advise against fighting it. Eventually they can set a precedent and get the larger companies to comply in secret courts where no one will know or care. The US has to be careful to balance its need to spy on everyone with its need to ensure economic dominance over everyone.

    188. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Why not only allow remote update only on phones which have been unlocked already?

    189. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Did anyone believe that the security of an iPhone (or Android Phone) would stand up to the resources available to a nation state - particularly one known to collect zero day exploits they keep to themselves?

      I would if a secure password had actually been used.

    190. Re:Suggestions anyone? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      I want mine to be secure against the common asshole.

      Lots of people also want them to be secure against corporate espionage.

    191. Re:Suggestions anyone? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Or even more obviously, the operating system is responsible for connecting the input method to the security hardware... so if the operating system is able to for example log the touch screen presses...

      Being able to make the operating system log touch screen presses doesn't do you any good when the person who knows the password isn't available or won't talk.

    192. Re:Suggestions anyone? by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      No, 4500. 4-digit PINs are those numbers between 1000 and 9999, inclusive. 9999-1000=8999. 8999/2 = 4499.5, rounded up to 4500.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    193. Re:Suggestions anyone? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's the iPhone 5C, basically a 5 with a different case. The 5S has more of the security in hardware, and at least has the ability to be much more secure. Apple isn't selling 5Cs any more.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    194. Re: Suggestions anyone? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A NSL or FISA warrant can force Apple to turn over information Apple already has, which is not the case here. In order to force Apple to circumvent its own security, the FBI tried to use the All Writs act in open court. My opinion is that the FBI was doing this to establish a precedent. (The FBI had had access to the phone before they broke it.)

      The method the FBI asked for could only be done by Apple, since it required putting a modified OS on the device, which would have required Apple's signing key.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    195. Re:Suggestions anyone? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      At which point we ask why the FBI waited for months to try to get the phone cracked, and why they didn't just copy all the information while they still had access (which they ordered broken).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    196. Re:Suggestions anyone? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Thing is, "unlimited resources", in the context of brute-forcing AES-256, means far more resources than exist in the Solar System, quite likely the Milky Way (depending on how good we can make quantum computers).

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    197. Re:Suggestions anyone? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If the wipe-after-ten-tries feature can't be defeated, there's a 0.1% chance of being able to crack it by guessing the PIN. If the delay-after-too-many-wrong-entries feature can't be defeated, there's a very small chance of trying ten thousand entries while the information is still of use. The FBI request was to disable those in software (which works for iPhones before the 5S), and allow PIN inputs not from the screen.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    198. Re:Suggestions anyone? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, there is some hardware security. The key is a function of a 256-bit random number that cannot be directly read and the PIN, and the decryption is done in hardware. Without doing some sort of hardware hacking on the chip, there'd be no way to use an emulator. The weak point is that iPhone PINs are usually four-digit combinations, easily brute-forced, and the features to prevent the brute-forcing are in software on the 5C.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    199. Re:Suggestions anyone? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's the case on the 5S and later. On the 5C, the wipe count is not on the SoC.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    200. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow the apple shills really are out in force with this one. I am all for a reasonable discussion on this but modding down just because a reasonable discussion conflicts with your perception that apple is somehow a guardian of your privacy is just stupid.

    201. Re:Suggestions anyone? by plague911 · · Score: 1

      I responded to that one because the rest of them were supporting points. That singular one was the critical summation point of the argument and it was just a crap summation from his other points. But you asked so Ill give you individual points about why his is a crap summation. But there are many many many more. 1) Lets assume that he never used this phone in an illicit way before. Whenever people are about to commit major actions they tend to deviate from their traditional paths. Thus you would need to check the phone to be sure. We have not been publicly informed that there was no other useful information they were able to so that first first assumption is faulty. Lets assume he may have previously used it illicitly. Then there is no reason why we as outside observes.should assume there was no other illicit information recently uploaded but not backed up. For example he could have kept a daily terrorist planner with live updates from all other terrorists in his network. the most recent updates ie the ones not backed up remotely could be of vital importance. He could very likely have half written draft texts which were not backed up. IE "Hey previously unkown terrorist boss when this is all over can you please come save my ass?" Thus they would need to check. All my points are just random guessing about things it could be. I don't know for sure. Its impossible to know from this outside observe situation.All these asshats who "know" are asshats who think too much of themselves. Its impossible for the FBI to know for sure whats on there. Thus its even more impossible for us as outside observes to know.

    202. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " You need a bit more than an an oscilloscope to mess up a signal travelling inside a chip."

      Not when you de-lid it and realize that there are shared traces. :) Kill one device to figure out how to break the rest. Man can make it, man can break it, no exceptions.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    203. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really believed that the could not break it from the get go you are delusional... the parties in question just dont want to have to share in court how they did it, so contracting a 3rd party would be a perfect cover for that.

      Never forget... no matter how smart you think you are... someone is always going to be smarter and be able to undo what you did.

    204. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The method the FBI asked for could only be done by Apple" Only done by Apple? Are you saying the FBI is lying about breaking into the phone? If there was a way to circumvent the security and access the phone content anybody with enough resources could do it without Apples help. Apple has a flexible policy on security concerns. They have given China the keys to the kingdom for access to the Chinese market. If it were not for the UN sanctions against NK they would most likely do anything the NK government wanted regarding security, location tracking, and the users privacy just to get access to the NK market. They have fulfilled other court orders in the US by helping the government extract data from phones but found religion on this case and incorporated the security aspects into their marketing strategies. They could of taken the phone from the FBI, accessed the data, and given the data to the FBI. They were not required to tell anyone how they accessed the phone. They could have removed any changes on the device in question and handed the phone back to the FBI in it's original condition.

    205. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Chadrach000 · · Score: 1

      All I see is hyperbole, we fucked up but, oh yeah we cracked ur shitty phone anyways punk PWND

    206. Re: Suggestions anyone? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The method the FBI asked for in the court order could only be done by Apple. It required Apple's signing key. The FBI either got into the phone another way, or lied and said they had.

      Could you give me a source on Apple rolling over for China? That seems to be a common belief, but I'm not convinced it's true.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    207. Re:Suggestions anyone? by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Don't need a day zero.

      If you have physical access, you can install a root kit, keylogger, etc.

      Any device that is not physically secure is at risk.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    208. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God damned hipster. Posting from an existing iPhone too mainstream for you? You had to post from an IBM Selectric didn't ya? Now my eyes are fucking bleeding. Thanks asshole!

    209. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbass poser! It's w00d. Get it right!

    210. Re:Suggestions anyone? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Counter-suit perhaps?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    211. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? My iPhone 4s happily accepts any PIN between 0000 and 9999 inclusive.

    212. Re:Suggestions anyone? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I would love to see it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    213. Re:Suggestions anyone? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You bet your ass, I'd love to see it. I might rent an apartment nearby, use my blog as my excuse, and go watch it an an entity of the press.

      I'm pretty sure that they're gonna kick me out on Day One. Probably for the overstuffed, giant, waving hand with the pointer finger pointing up and "#!" written on it.

      Damn it... Now I'm gonna end up with contempt of court charges and languish in jail until they see fit to let me apologize and be on my way. Prior to this, you were trying to help get me shot. I gotta stop talking to you! ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    214. Re:Suggestions anyone? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that they're gonna kick me out on Day One. Probably for the overstuffed, giant, waving hand with the pointer finger pointing up and "#!" written on it.

      Probably for trying to get your AK-47 through security

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    215. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple hasn't really suffered harm here?

      Did you notice that the most recent Apple event was pretty underwhelming? I am pretty sure that some launches (eg watch 2.0) got delayed because management and senior engineer attention was diverted.

    216. Re:Suggestions anyone? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Grandparent said:

      an iPad Mini2 (which uses the same A7 model as the 5S and has secure enclave)

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    217. Re:Suggestions anyone? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Shared traces between what and what? The part of the SoC that contains the secure enclave and the part of the SoC that contains the secure enclave?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    218. Re:Suggestions anyone? by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      No, 4500. 4-digit PINs are those numbers between 1000 and 9999, inclusive. 9999-1000=8999. 8999/2 = 4499.5, rounded up to 4500.

      Nope. Leading zeros are allowed. 10,000 combinations.

    219. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Secure Enclave and A7 share data output traces inside the A7.

      The only problem is getting to those traces, which requires de-lidding the APL A7-0698 because it's a BGA-mounted package.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    220. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I don't see how public opinion or other corporations would be able to affect the Court appeal process. The appeals court judges and the justices are not, after all, elected.

      With ethical judges, public opinion does affect the appeal process.

      This follows from the oaths the judges swear to uphold the Bill of Rights, the highest law in the land.

      James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights to be open-ended, retaining (9th Amendment) and reserving (10th Amendment) unspecified rights to the people. It was an incredibly brilliant decision, as it short circuits all arguments to the effect that "there is no right regarding X" written down in the law. With Madison's approach, the right exists if it is reasonable in the eyes of the people, whether or not it is written down.

      In short, in the USA, government can write the laws, but those laws are only legitimate if they do not infringe rights the people choose to assert. It's not a pure democracy, but also not entirely a republic - neither fish nor fowl.

      Fundamental rights arising under the 9th Amendment include a strong right to privacy (obviously applicable in this case), the right to ethical government (also applicable), the right to ethical practice of law, the right to travel (and roam), the right to ethics in business. Many others can be asserted.

      Ethical judges take all this into account when making decisions. Unfortunately, history has shown that most judges are not ethical, particularly at the higher levels. The system works against ethical people being selected for those positions. It is incredibly easy to find high court decisions that ignore ethics issues, particularly legal ethics issues, and that is one of the reasons the US legal profession has such a bad reputation around the world, and why the US legal system is such a disaster.

      Agents of the FBI, incidentally, are also required by their oaths to uphold the law to think about 9th Amendment issues (and restrain themselves accordingly). This seldom happens, from what I can see. The lessons of Nuremberg are easily forgotten.

    221. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that is highly unlikely. This guy was aware enough to destroy his other phones, it is unlikely he would have used his work phone for any terrorist related activity, if he had he likely would have destroyed it too.

    222. Re:Suggestions anyone? by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      Looks like you're right. Gold star.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    223. Re: Suggestions anyone? by valdezjuan · · Score: 1

      Actually it's from an iphone 5s, I'm just an asshole. ;-}

    224. Re:Suggestions anyone? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a 100% secure platform. Every time someone makes such a boast the system gets hacked - usually very publicly.

      Sounds like it's a lot cheaper to boast about your platform instead of paying bug bounties, doesn't it?

      It seems to be cheaper to boast about paying bug bounties than to actually make your system secure.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    225. Re: Suggestions anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 Illegible.

  2. Really... by DoraLives · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...was there ever any doubt?

    --
    Is it fascism yet?
    1. Re:Really... by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...was there ever any doubt?

      There is still doubt.
      The announcement is so vague that I am not convinced if they accessed the phone or are just saving face (since they didn't particularly need the contents in the first place).

    2. Re:Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. In the mid 1990's I helped the LAPD and FBI to crack PGP to catch an alleged pedophile. They were unsuccessful, but found enough evidence through other means. If you actually read the filing http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/28/technology/document-us-filing-dropping-apple-case.html it does not say they cracked the phone crypto, but merely that they had accessed the data on the phone. Maybe an iTunes iPhone backup was found for all we know.

      The FBI has a significant motive to lie to prevent further litigation that may well have resulted in a negative precedent in district court. Until a proof of concept is presented, I would be chary jumping to the conclusion of all news sources are, that the phone security was broken.

    3. Re:Really... by absurd2718 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they could be using weasel words where "access" simply means they have physical access (aka possession of the phone) and "data" means just the encrypted data, so saying they "successfully accessed the data" could mean they have exactly the same information from the phone as they did before going to court.

    4. Re:Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The announcement is so vague that I am not convinced if they accessed the phone or are just saving face (since they didn't particularly need the contents in the first place).

      I believe it. The Israelis are renowned for their skill with telecommunications equipment and hacking. Don't forget that it was the Israelis who collaborated with the United States on Stuxnet and the Israeli Defense Forces are also home to the elite unit 8200 signals intelligence corps, which is said to have involved at one time or another many skilled hackers and with some alumni going on to found successful startups, especially in the IT security space. I doesn't surprise me at all that the Israelis have a stash of zero day exploits for one of the most popular phones in the world nor that they would choose to help the FBI, an allied law enforcement and intelligence agency, since it's always nice to have a favor or two to call in when you need something done.

    5. Re:Really... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A way to unlock the phone was described in detail long before: basically, copy the flash memory that contains the "wipe key", and restore it every time the phone "wipes" itself during bruteforcing. Given that this method is known, why is it surprising that FBI unlocked the phone? The only surprising thing here is why it took them so long to actually do that, but it's only surprising if you assume that the goal of that whole kerfluffle was to unlock the phone, and not to set the precedent to force everyone to give them the skeleton key. If it's actually the latter, then it's only logical that they gave up and just unlocked it when they realized that courts won't rule in their favor.

    6. Re:Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can as well be that they had cracked the phone right away four months ago, and the whole legal show was created to keep the enemy in the dark.
      Spooks are not supposed to always tell the truth.

    7. Re:Really... by Snatch422 · · Score: 0

      The spook part of the US government has technology to access any device and do a lot more than just access, but put hypervisors or small chips in to harass and less often monitor. This is the public face of the government. They have to deal with public credibility and opinion, courts and official court sanctioned evidence. Considering some in the FBI are actually CIA agents loyal to the rich old boys network that's been running the country since the 1850s, its certain they could dump the phone in no time but that evidence would be secretly obtained and classified as top secret since it would not hold up in court.
      The government is a two faced beast these days with a million top secret security clearances handed out like candy mostly to people wanting to be in a freemasonry style crime cult which stalks, harasses, makes puppets and runs the country by being cowards in neighboring rooms brainwashing and harassing victims. But probably the truth about the US government is a bit deep for this thread. Let's stick to the public face where things sound so much more normal!

    8. Re:Really... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      ...was there ever any doubt?

      Legally, yes. This is important because it's the first step to proving that Comey perjured himself. Now we just need to show that the FBI knew that there were companies offering this service (i.e. the FBI knows how to google "unlock iphone 5c") and either lied about it or deliberately chose not to ask them until it looked like they might lose.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean it's surprising it took them so long to find someone they could pay to do it for them.

    10. Re:Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its vague on purpose. Why give the terrorist's a security heads up?

  3. This Just In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The FBI found a Post-It (tm) note stuck to Farook's home computer monitor.
    the note mentioned PIN : 1234

    eNjoy!

    1. Re:This Just In by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      that's the combination to my luggage! How did they know??

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    2. Re:This Just In by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      They knew because the Post-It (tm) note had an additional remark: "(Mnemonics: it's the same as ihtoit's luggage combination)".

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:This Just In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI still couldn't get into the phone for weeks, so they hired that other company. Their tech stopped by and put in 4321 and the phone unlocked.

  4. I Feel So Much Safer Now. by zenlessyank · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks FBI !!!!

  5. Sooo by dejitaru · · Score: 1

    They did go to John McAfee for help!

    1. Re:Sooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard it was like that time he got a hooker to do his taxes while he fucked his accountant.

  6. If they can hide aliens then can get into stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apple bling.

  7. This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    iPhone 8 will require fingerprint, retina scan, 57 digit passcode, DNA sample, and Tim Cook's voice passcode for access.

    1. Re:This just in... by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Funny

      my voice is my passport

    2. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what happened when Apple carbon copied the increase in screen real estate, amiright?

      Implying one copies off the other and that it isn't reciprocated is what makes you the fucking looser that you are.

    3. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verify me.

    4. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had several Android phones with finger print access before the iPhone ever released it. Get over yourself. Samsung copied the initial physical appearance and some UI aspects and then never looked back. Samsung has been in the leading role for a few years now.

    5. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I had several Android phones with finger print access before the iPhone ever released it.

      Yet Samsung didn't announce their fingerprint-reader-equipped smartphone until a month after Apple announced theirs.

    6. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the stool sample, but yeah that sounds about right.

    7. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iPhone 8 will require fingerprint, retina scan, 57 digit passcode, DNA sample, and Tim Cook's cock in the luser's mouth for access.

      FTFY

    8. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my voice is my passport

      witness me!

    9. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android will require testicle / labia prints for access.

    10. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my voice is my passport

      Verify me.

    11. Re:This just in... by Toshito · · Score: 1

      iPhone 8 will require fingerprint, retina scan, 57 digit passcode, DNA sample, and Tim Cook's voice passcode for access.

      You forgot the stool sample.

      --
      Try it! Library of Babel
    12. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too many secrets

    13. Re:This just in... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Parent post is full of shit.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  8. So what did they find? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They found nothing since it was a work phone. In addition the local government that he worked for paid for the software to access the phone but never properly installed it. So this whole venture by the FBI was a total waste. Mission accomplished.

  9. Sorry they didn't get their backdoor precident... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many Edward Scissorhands of time did it take to unlock?

  10. "FBI Claims..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FIFY.

    I would not necessarily be inclined to believe this without a peer-reviewed verification. There is a lot of face-saving that occurs in the terrorism-industrial complex. E.g. the constant refrain of "we foiled a plot" without any details or substantiating evidence. Budgets need to be re-upped.

    Maybe. But they have little track record for credibility.

    1. Re:"FBI Claims..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we will find out once they disclose that

      'nothing of interest' was found on the phone...

      OR, more likely...

      "troves of new evidence" was phone on the phone...

      but later proven by others to not have been possible to exist on that particular phone in the first place.. and was actually 'found' via other, 'warrentless', illegal means, and then attempts were made to construct a case using it.

    2. Re:"FBI Claims..." by sabbede · · Score: 1

      I doubt we'll hear anything more about it unless reporters wrap FOIA requests around a brick and throw them at the DoJ.

  11. But Out by Atomizer · · Score: 2

    How long until Apple buys Cellebrite?

    1. Re:But Out by theodp · · Score: 2

      Or until Google does, and publishes the exploit. :-)

    2. Re:But Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That still helps apple.. as they would know the precise vulnerability and have a chance to plug it, all without having spent a dime to acquire it.

  12. It's simple by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

    They probably went to Farook's bank, asked them for his account's PIN, and then tried that on the phone.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the bank shouldn't know the PIN. The PIN is used to encrypt the card and shouldn't live on a central server. I'd also hope that the bank doesn't record the pin in any plain text (if indeed it does) and again just uses it to confirm a hashed text decrypts.

    2. Re: It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banks have the encrypted pins in the main dbs. They probably subpoenaed the encrypted pin and tried all 10,000.

    3. Re: It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't know how banks work with pin numbers.

      It's a 4 digit number. That's less than 16 bits of data. Not a very good encryption key.

      I suggest you do some research out you'll continue to look like a fool

    4. Re:It's simple by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I'd also hope that the bank doesn't record the pin in any plain text (if indeed it does) and again just uses it to confirm a hashed text decrypts.

      You know it's a four digit PIN. Hashing it would I suppose prevent accidental compromise. But the time it takes to hash all 10k combinations is subseconds.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  13. exit strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    they decided they didn't want to win and they didn't want to lose. This way, they can say "yeah, we did it" and then in a few months "turns out nothing of value was on the phone". This was never about getting into this phone, it was just the most media friendly scenario for a test case to set precedent. This way they can back out of the case with honor maintained without losing and without winning.
    There is an outside chance that someone helped them slice the ram off the top of the cpu (it is PoP mounted) and they put in fake RAM so they can poke about in it after signature verification, but my guess is that it is an exit strategy and they have nothing.

  14. Did they really crack the phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No proof? No data? Would be embarrassing eh?

  15. What did Apple know? by techstar25 · · Score: 2

    It's very likely that Apple knew the FBI could break in, but they figured it would take some time and therefore chose the good PR route by saying they wouldn't help ...yada yada ... civil liberties... yada yada.

    1. Re:What did Apple know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or infact Apple did decrypt the phone, maybe by a 3rd party and had everyone sign NDA's...

    2. Re:What did Apple know? by Trongy · · Score: 2

      > It's very likely that Apple knew the FBI could break in ...

      Apple implied this in court when they stated that no other government body had ever requested similar access.

      It's pretty clear that the FBI's motive was not this particular case - they wanted Apple to create software to allow them to have routine access to iphones without effort.

      Apple's intention was to keep the bar to access high enough to hope that their phones will only be broken in the worst cases, not routinely and without a warrant by any FBI officer who cares to do so.

    3. Re:What did Apple know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who is the hero here.

      FBI for getting the information they already had but wanted to get a legal precedent ....
      or
      Apple for holding on to their "secret" that they know was easily (relativey) broken.

    4. Re:What did Apple know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a post previously about this. If the FBI compels Apple to do it, then the precedence is set for companies to do at when the FBI asks via court order. This has minimal cost to the FBI, so they can make requests all the time without extra costs (DA's are salaried federal employees).

      This way the FBI has to pay out of pocket, ship the phone, maintain the custody records, identify who it gets shipped to, etc. etc. As a result, it will occur less often (see the local law enforcement that have long lists of phones to crack that can't afford / can't violate national security [guessing classified process to crack] to go this route.

      What is interesting is this implies that another country (Israel) has this cracking ability. Contrary to popular belief, the US federal government doesn't have a lot of trust in Israel beyond political speeches. I'm not sure what this is going to cause going forward...

  16. The issue in this case was never encryption by darrellm · · Score: 0

    We don't know all of the exact particulars in the case - although I read that the technique involved cloning the phone chip contents and could continue brute force retries of the passcode without worrying about the phone being wiped. But one thing we do know that this case was NEVER about encryption technology and Apple's continual portrayal of it as such was simply a marketing lie. I don't think people realize that encryption of all of the contents of your phone is almost worthless since it has to be continually decrypted by the phone OS so all you have to do is to get access to the phone's home screen to access the full contents of the phone.

    1. Re:The issue in this case was never encryption by Karlt1 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying encryption is worthless because you have to decrypt the data to use it?

    2. Re:The issue in this case was never encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't read ALL the articles where someone from Apple referred to this case but I'm pretty damn sure nobody at Apple was screaming 'this is about encryption'...they NEVER were...it was about 'a spurious use of the All Writs Act' AND 'trying to force a manufacturer to build something LESS secure then they designed it to be'...encryption is of course in here so if it showed up in anything your read it was likely incidental not central to Apple's responses to the FBI's attmpted 'end run around the Constitution'

    3. Re:The issue in this case was never encryption by darrellm · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm saying chip level encryption is worthless since the OS decrypts the data so all that is required is to gain access to the phone and that will always be the vulnerability. I've read that the older iPhone 5c wasn't even encrypted so it's never been an encryption issue anyway. The only protection the phone really had was the 10 passcode try phone wipe. But it appears even if it was encrypted then it would have offered no additional protection for the phone.

    4. Re:The issue in this case was never encryption by argumentsockpuppet · · Score: 1

      I think it's worth discussing exactly how the encryption works again.

      When the phone boots up, the data is still encrypted. Having access to the data while still encrypted is what they had but couldn't use. Once the PIN is entered, the data key is decrypted, which is what allows the OS to access the previoulsy encrypted data.

      The data that is necessary to present the unlock screen is stored on the chip and can be overwritten, but doing so erases the key needed for the OS to access the encrypted data.

      If you can get the phone after the PIN has been entered and the phone hasn't been rebooted, then the OS has access to the data. The problem is simply that you have to get past the PIN screen first. (That's not how jailbreaking works, by the way.) Entering the wrong PIN ten times will erase the key, which renders the encrypted data worthless again.

      On the phone the case was about, it is possible to push a software update for the PIN entry screen without entering the PIN. It doesn't give you access to the encrypted data, but it could disable the part of the system that erases the decryption key. That would allow someone to enter more than ten guesses, unlimited guesses, in order to get the data key decrypted which would allow access to the previously encypted data.

      Yes, I'm saying chip level encryption is worthless since the OS decrypts the data

      The chip level encryption isn't worthless since the OS decrypts the data only after the PIN has been entered, and only if it is entered correctly within the first ten tries. The newer phones don't allow modification of that PIN entry screen the same way as a phone this old does.

    5. Re:The issue in this case was never encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...all you have to do is to get access to the phone's home screen to access the full contents of the phone.

      Yes. And doing that requires the PIN, which is used to derive the encryption key for most of the data. The current security model for iOS has (at least) three levels of protection (obviously I'm simplifying somewhat):

      * Data that's always available is encrypted with a key that can be derived with no PIN - that's really just for quick secure erase by wiping part of the key.
      * Data that's available any time after the first unlock is encrypted with a key that's derived from the PIN and processor IDs. It's stored in RAM until the device shuts down, but isn't available until the PIN is entered after boot.
      * Data that's only available while unlocked is encrypted with a different key derived from the PIN and processor IDs, which is wiped from RAM when locked. On TouchID phones, it's not wiped, but handed to the secure enclave to be released if/when the phone is unlocked with a fingerprint.

      So while "all you have to do" is get to the home screen, that necessarily entails cracking the encryption.

  17. I can just imagine the look on their faces by ickleberry · · Score: 1

    When they unlocked it and started looking through the files, and realised there was feck all of interest on it

    1. Re:I can just imagine the look on their faces by Imrik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would be very surprised if they were surprised at the lack of useful data on it.

    2. Re:I can just imagine the look on their faces by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      When they unlocked it and started looking through the files, and realised there was feck all of interest on it

      The FBI even said that was the most probable scenario, but nonetheless wanted a thorough investigation.

    3. Re:I can just imagine the look on their faces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they unlocked it and started looking through the files, and realised there was feck all of interest on it

      ... and found a boatload of goatporn and orders for tall rubber boats.

    4. Re:I can just imagine the look on their faces by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      I would be very surprised if they were surprised at the lack of useful data on it.

      Maybe they'll be able to boost his Candy Crush Saga & Clash of Clans accounts.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  18. Apple's response? by Sparowl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, now the question becomes - What does Apple do?

    Do they risk trying to get the case dismissed with prejudice, as to prevent it from coming up again (or at least giving them precedent to have it thrown out?)

    Obviously they will try and find the way it was done (if they don't already know). Will they try and claim the problem is fixed?

    Does the FBI have the ability to do this continually now? Or is it a case by case basis using an outside firm that has ongoing costs? What about all the phones the police departments had lined up?

    Quite a few unanswered questions.

    1. Re:Apple's response? by dbIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Charles Stross has a bit about this on his blog. He suspects that Apple is moving into the electronic funds transfer sector a bit more than they already are and that if there was a publicly known backdoor that would screw over trust issues enough to mess up potential future business.
      He phrases it as the FBI wanting a backdoor into what will effectively be an ATM machine network. Not a good look for the vendor of such a thing.

      In around 2000 there were people buying fuel at the pump in one country via their phones but the banks got in the way of that being a viable payment method in general. Now Apple probably have the ability to do to the banks what they did to the music companies and actually implement the old electronic wallet idea. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing or a bad thing, just that it looks like Apple is heading in that direction and the FBI having a backdoor into it would be a danger to such a system.

    2. Re:Apple's response? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Apple, Google and the west in general are just catching up to what east Asian countries have been doing for over a decade. The osaifu keitai system was introduced in 2004, allowing mobile payments via mobiles (which back then were mostly flip phones). Similar to Apple and Google's systems the osaifu keitai phones have a secure element (developed by Sony) that handles the payment and is separated from the main phone software.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Apple's response? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes that's a far better example than the one from 2000 (Spain? Italy?) that I remember hearing about at the time.

    4. Re:Apple's response? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charles Stross has a bit about this on his blog. He suspects that Apple is moving into the electronic funds transfer sector a bit more than they already are

      Yes. They are.

    5. Re:Apple's response? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      "developed by sony..."

      oh, so you mean, *incompetantly done*, with probably more holes than a swiss cheese?

      sony can't do anything right anymore. 30 years ago, sure, they were the go-to company for electronics. now, they are a shell of what they once were. I can't remember the last sony item I bought (ignoring chips inside finished goods).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Apple's response? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sony is a large company with many divisions... I dislike them too, but to be fair the Felicia system they developed for contactless payments has proven secure since it's introduction (around 1999 IIRC), while other similar systems form European manufacturers have fallen.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Apple's response? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find interesting is that the FBI has just admitted to a DMCA violation.

    8. Re:Apple's response? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *incompetantly done*

      lol irony

  19. "impossible" by supernova87a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, the government misrepresented in its original filing that, "Apple must be compelled to provide the backdoor to unlock the phone, because we have no other means of doing so".

    Always interesting how a party can be motivated to do the impossible when you force them to think about it hard enough.

    1. Re:"impossible" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, because at the time of the filing, no one had any tools or exploits on the market. Since then, a third party has come out and claimed to have tools that would work. It looks like the FBI tested them, and it did work. Now, since a previously unknown party has made it possible to crack the phone without the cooperation of the software's owner, Apple, the writ is withdrawn - as it should be.

    2. Re:"impossible" by LetterRip · · Score: 0

      So, the government misrepresented in its original filing that, "Apple must be compelled to provide the backdoor to unlock the phone, because we have no other means of doing so".

      Actually it is believed that the firm invented the method during the trial, so the government did not misrepresent the facts in the filing.

    3. Re:"impossible" by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Always interesting how a party can be motivated to do the impossible when you force them to think about it hard enough.

      Next thing you know, they'll put men on the moon...

    4. Re:"impossible" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Believed by you maybe.

      Frankly I think it is just as likely that the FBI had a tedious solution up their sleeves already and were just trying to force Apple to create a simple plug and play exploit so it could be handed out to every two bit podunk sheriff and their magistrate lackeys. The only thing this case was about was precedence and while I am tied to the android architecture right now I have to say kudos to Apple for standing up against that.

    5. Re:"impossible" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find that difficult to believe. What they proposed was the very first thing to pop into my head the first time I heard about the case. It's not a simple thing to do by any means -- it's a delicate job opening up the phone, removing the NVRAMs, etc. but it was a perfectly obvious work-around. Apple engineers would have thought of it, and if there was any electrical engineer worth his salt at the FBI, he would have thought of it too.

      What the FBI wanted was the easy and universal solution, and one that could work even if they weren't in physical possession of the phone (or that they could use illicitly and keep the phone intact). They didn't want something that required you to have the phone and a warrant.

      Mind you, it only worked because the criminal used a PIN code. If they used a password (a good password) the FBI would still be chugging away at cracking the phone.

    6. Re:"impossible" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You believe that old government conspiracy?

    7. Re:"impossible" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the government misrepresented in its original filing that, "Apple must be compelled to provide the backdoor to unlock the phone, because we have no other means of doing so".

      Always interesting how a party can be motivated to do the impossible when you force them to think about it hard enough.

      As others have stated in previous discussions they probably just copied the phone to a VM, and used automated test tools to brute force it.

  20. Sharing is good by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    The official declined to speculate whether the method will be used on other phones in other investigations, or if the method will be shared with law enforcement agencies at the state and local level, or if information about it will be shared with Apple.

    It is a pretty safe bet the method will be used in other investigations, though I'd be shocked if the information is shared with one of those listed.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  21. Cupertinto better get busy! by shubus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple cannot be happy about this. Users, of which I am one, am not happy about this. Apple needs to up their game. NOW.

    1. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by Karlt1 · · Score: 2

      They decrypted a 32 bit iPhone 5c running iOS 7. All indications are that security professionals think that if it had been a newer 64 bit phone with the extra encryption hardware running a later version of the OS, it would be harder to decrypt.

    2. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The game does not need to be "upped". The only reason the encryption is so easily crackable is because it only had a 4 digit PIN. If the person had used a 16 character alphanumeric passcode, the encryption would be for all intents and purposes "uncrackable" as even with Apple's assistance, the FBI would never be able to brute-force the lock.

    3. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by shubus · · Score: 1

      So they got lucky and hit the 4 digit pin before the auto-wipeout? I don't wee what difference it makes if you have a 4 or 5 digit pin--they still have to guess correctly before the counter hits 10 and wipes out the phone.

    4. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      Apple cannot be happy about this. Users, of which I am one, am not happy about this. Apple needs to up their game. NOW.

      I had asked before: has Apple ever said its phones' data are positively, absolutely, perfectly secure from others accessing it if you implement such-and-such procedures we told you to do?

      I think this has been the conventional understanding but may have been a fiction generated by Apple diehards and perhaps not denied by Apple as a PR ploy. Look, it took quite some time for President Obama to get a secure Black Berry phone and Mrs. Clinton would have needed some kind of $4k + device to be secure. If Apple phones were absolutely secure from prying eyes, why couldn't the government have paid less than $1k per off the shelf iPhones for the needed security? They might have gotten a price break for buying them by the thousands. I'm guessing this kind of proves the government knew iPhones weren't 100% secure. Yes, I know there's a difference between intercepting phone calls, SMS messages, cell phone email, etc., from stored phone information, but how much overlap in security is there?

      Indeed: Apple needs to get to work to insure that what people expect their security to be is the security they have.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    5. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe they figured out a way to reset pin counter before they hit the 10th failed attempt and retried. Maybe by copying the working flash and then copying it back before they hit the final attempt or something similar I have read.

    6. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You could make forensic copies of the original encrypted device and brute force those at will.

    7. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And good lord. I can barely tap in a 4 digit pin on a touchscreen. Sixteen would be impossible and/or so inconvenient as to render it useless.

    8. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did. Secure Enclave devices, (with an A7 or later processor) are not impacted by one of the attack methods they likely used.

      There's basically two known options left :

      - (pre-Secure Enclave only) reset the wipe counter, via swapping imaged NAND in every 5 attempts. Only requires lab conditions. Ultimately this is a way to bypass the "erase after x attempts counter". With a 4 digit passcode this is not too hard, at 1-4 weeks of effort , but a complex 8+ alphanumeric character passcode will still take forever. Keep in mind, if under MDM, the device could have a self erase threshold as low as 3 attempts, and there is no simple way to know this in general (in a case similar to the San Bernadino one, the owning organisation would know of course from their MDM, but if they have MDM they can unlock it anyhow). There's about USD $50-100k in hardware to set up for this.

      - (any device) decap the hardware cryptographic module in a cleanroom , read out the device key, and throw the the keys to the image at a compute cluster. This is USD $million scale to do, so its nation state/very large company/major organised crime/very rich individual scale problem. The device is destroyed in the process, and this is a finicky process that can fail. Fixing this would require anti-tamper hardware and that would be a first for a consumer grade device.

      There are other more tinfoil hat options:

      - mythical "silver bullet" zero day exploits that may or may not exist;
      - humint / honeypot operation to compromise Apple staff with access to code signing keys (so you can DIY what the FBI was seeing to order Apple to do)

      Apple could shut down the latter by hardening DFU mode with respect to secure enclave keys (i.e. making any upgrade to secure enclave firmware a 2 step process that required the device passcode to restore trust before the upgrade occurred).

      Requiring government to have source code access by law, isn't required at a technical level. Its more of political statement to unequivocally say "The US government pwns all US companies products".

      I think broadly Apple wants to end up in a position that it has no keys to influence access to customer data. Its not there yet, but its not far off.

    9. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by plague911 · · Score: 1

      Unless Apple implemented some glaring obvious hole in their system of course the newer version is going to be harder.

    10. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by plague911 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they were able to block the signal to up the counter or any other million things. Its amazing what funny and reproducible issues you can cause in a chip by even pressing on the physical structure in the right pattern.

    11. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by mattventura · · Score: 1

      You only need the PIN/passphrase to unlock the phone after reboot or after a certain period of time. All other times, you just use the fingerprint scanner.

    12. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The game does not need to be "upped". The only reason the encryption is so easily crackable is because it only had a 4 digit PIN. If the person had used a 16 character alphanumeric passcode, the encryption would be for all intents and purposes "uncrackable" as even with Apple's assistance, the FBI would never be able to brute-force the lock.

      Sure, but it misses the point entirely. This is a device you carry with you 24/7. If you really have the time to enter a good password, including no dictionary words, both cases, numbers, and symbols every time you unlock your phone, then you may need a more interesting day job. The only real place I can see to put a truly secure password is during the initial phone boot, and I'm doubting Apple really wants to deal with that tech support nightmare, though it is arguable. A normal unlock would still be a quick sequence.

      Apple's 10 strikes and your out algorithm addresses this with the secure enclave, and seems to work, so it is questionable if more security is really required. Either way, battle is already joined. Sure the government may have backed off, but I'd bet money that Apple currently has at least a couple people working on making their phones even more secure. Whether it was getting that much focus before is questionable, but now you've threatened their core product. I rather doubt they are going to ignore that threat easily.

    13. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      If Apple phones were absolutely secure from prying eyes, why couldn't the government have paid less than $1k per off the shelf iPhones for the needed security?

      It may boil down to cost/benefit. There's a difference between secure and provably secure. I don't know how the government vets these things but surely there's a certification process involved. Source code would have to be handed over and every single line analyzed and signed off by multiple teams, tests would need to be written and conducted, lots of man hours invested... And the government isn't footing the bill. Apple (or Samsung, or anyone other than Blackberry) may not have been willing to submit to that process.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    14. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they upped the counter, if a 16 character alphanumeric passcode was used...good luck with that...

    15. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      The wipeout doesn't wipe the entire device memory - it would be too slow. Instead, it wipes the key that encrypts that memory (one of the keys, present there for that explicit purpose - there is also the actual key that is derived from the PIN, so knowing that one key doesn't let you decrypt), rendering it a meaningless soup of bits. This is fairly standard approach in secure storage systems.

      Now, said key is stored in flash memory. And it so happens that on this iPhone model, that flash memory is accessible if you're willing to tinker with hardware. It's possible to separate the memory chip from the rest of the phone, read the data, and copy it. Then, you can restore the key every time the device wipes itself, since the wipe only affects the memory which you have copied.

      You still have to bruteforce the PIN/password to get the main encryption key, though. Which is is pretty easy if it's a 4-digit pin, but essentially impossible with a sufficiently long password.

      The lesson of the story is that no system is secure against bruteforcing, and so if you want real security, you have to choose your secrets (passwords, keys etc) with the assumption that a bruteforce attack will be attempted, and all countermeasures will fail. Your actual password has to be long enough to thwart bruteforcing.

    16. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      If the person had used a 16 character alphanumeric passcode ...

      Kids and their 16 character passcode, pfff. Get off my lawn!

    17. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by brunes69 · · Score: 0

      They read the encrypted key off of the phone using an electron microscope, allowing them to brute-force attempt as many combinations as they want. A computer can try 9999 four digit passcodes in under a second. Not true of long alphanumeric passcodes.

    18. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by RatPh!nk · · Score: 1

      FWIW I think it was an iPhone 5c running iOS 9.

      --
      Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
    19. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they setup Touch ID, that would be true; they'd simply need the guy's finger to open the phone (and they had that). I believe this was an older model that did not include Touch ID.

      However, Touch ID doesn't make it an easier to crack in the absence of the actual print (or a suitable prosthesis made from a high-quality latent print). All Touch ID does is convert the print information into an array of bytes that are used to encrypt the same key that the passcode does. Under the covers, it's identical to typing in a different passcode to unlock a differently encrypted version of the same key.

    20. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried typing a 16-character alphanumeric passcode on an iPhone? Were you able to correctly type it three times out of four? Is this something you intend to do frequently?

      Given the restrictions on guessing (the lockout delay and the wipe after ten failures), a four-digit PIN is almost certainly adequate. A six-digit PIN, which isn't much harder, is a hundred times as secure.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:Cupertinto better get busy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why you use a long passcode in combination with a fingerprint lock. You will only have to type the password once or twice a day tops.

  22. THIS JUST IN by BurnTim · · Score: 5, Funny

    The FBI have confirmed that Farook had a Flappy Bird High Score of 31.

  23. Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lies!

    The FBI had access to the data long time ago, this case was all about getting apple to make a handy tool they could use whenever they wanted. No, this is a quiet back peddle to distract the public in hopes that they will forget that the FBI's outcry for the victims didn't sway public opinion.

    The FBI will try again, but next time it won't be in the court of public opinion. I for one hope that companies are aware of this and make products that not even they can break into.

  24. Shady by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They got an image off the phone but its likely still encrypted. Now they can try brute forcing without fear of the device wiping itself.
    Whether they can decrypt it or not is the question, but we'll likely never hear of the phone again.

  25. Mucraker? Can you say FOIA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May take a while but would be interested in knowing if anyone will be filing an FOIA request for information on this incident....the result may just be all blacked out text but it would be good to try.

  26. Does anybody at all hope the FBI found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://goatse.cx

  27. Theory is backing up nand chip by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    The leading theory is: Desolder the memory chip, make an off line copy, then reattach the chip, try 10 unlock codes. If it scrambles the memory restore from back up and try next 10 unlock codes.

    The downside seems to be: It is a delicate operation to desolder and remove the memory chip. But if it is successfully removed, then they will probably attach a harness so that they can detach/restore/reattach a memory chip many times to try different codes.

    I don't know how necessary it would be detach the chip to read the memory. If the leads are accessible, they can build some leadframe to attach to the other side and try to read the chip without powering up the original phone, and try to restore memory, but sure it is possible.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Theory is backing up nand chip by tlambert · · Score: 1

      The leading theory is: Desolder the memory chip, make an off line copy, then reattach the chip, try 10 unlock codes. If it scrambles the memory restore from back up and try next 10 unlock codes.

      The downside seems to be: It is a delicate operation to desolder and remove the memory chip. But if it is successfully removed, then they will probably attach a harness so that they can detach/restore/reattach a memory chip many times to try different codes.

      It's not that delicate. There's a Samsung engineer who was unlocking iPhones for $200 a pop with about an 95% success rate using a toaster oven for the reflow, back when there wasn't a software unlock.

      Also, what I suggested in the first place. A variant of the technique would disable the flash write enable pin after it boots. That way /var/run/* is all happy, and the phone can't tell during boot.

      The fix is to just try a write during pin entry, and read it back, and if it's not the same, iOS knows it's being gamed.

      The fix for the fix is to provide write cache RAM in front of the flash, and *still* disable the WE pin going to the actual flash. The iOS thinks it's been written successfully, and can't see the hardware hack again.

      The fix for the fix for the fix is maintain a boot count without the code being entered, since they have to allow writes until they disable them.

      Eventually, we get to where we enter a couple of failed pass codes, and utilizing what's used to do the crypt reference, infer the hidden code. But then you are starting to talk a lot of hardware.

      So you FedEx it to Chipworks in Canada, they top the secure enclave and the CPU for you, and you just operate on the flash image.

    2. Re:Theory is backing up nand chip by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Why desolder and risk damaging the IC? Does the iPhone not have JTAG test points on the PCB?

  28. Re:Sorry they didn't get their backdoor precident. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    I thought they still measured processing time in P90-hours?

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  29. FOIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So who's filed a FOIA request to find out how they did it?

  30. it's now time to Buy a New iPhone by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    with the new and improved encryption. the FBI just wrote Apple's Ad copy.

    1. Re:it's now time to Buy a New iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or BlackBerry's... oh, wait... BlackBerry doesn't advertise.

  31. So when will they tell us by UVB-76 · · Score: 1

    When will they release the ticking time bombs of viruses that were stored on that phone? You remember, the ones so terrible and dangerous that they were worth violating all of our 4th amendment rights for?

  32. Who knew? by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 3, Funny

    That in 2016, the Jews would be helping the Nazis... ...it's a strange world...

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:Who knew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, right? Seems the "soros philosophy" is spreading amongst them.

  33. Eye roll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure they did. Pics or it didn't happen. Lying liars.

  34. Has anyone considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that the mysterious "third party" is... Apple. They get to acquiesce while saving face. Next step is to publicly feign outraged and vow to create an unbreakable phone for reals this time.

  35. The incredibly funny part is coming... by tlambert · · Score: 5, Funny

    The incredibly funny part is coming... 3... 2... 1...

    Apple files suit in federal court under the DMCA, claiming Cellebrite has created a circumvention device; and since they, themselves were not law enforcement agents, and they did it on contract, rather than doing it as independent security research, the DMCA safe harbor procedures don't apply.

    And then Apple releases an iOS update.

    1. Re:The incredibly funny part is coming... by LetterRip · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apple files suit in federal court under the DMCA, claiming Cellebrite has created a circumvention device; and since they, themselves were not law enforcement agents, and they did it on contract, rather than doing it as independent security research, the DMCA safe harbor procedures don't apply.

      And then Apple releases an iOS update.

      Method got classified by FBI, which defeats Apple being able to do so.

    2. Re:The incredibly funny part is coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking delicious. Won't happen because gov't. But nice idea anyway.

    3. Re:The incredibly funny part is coming... by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      Cellebrite is an Israeli company and Israel is not bound by DMCA requirements.

    4. Re:The incredibly funny part is coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the state have a duty to protect its citizens and their property?

      Any harm that is caused by the accessing phones in this method could be mitigated by the government releasing this information to apple. Who knows that harm could come of it?

    5. Re:The incredibly funny part is coming... by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Cellebrite is an Israeli company and Israel is not bound by DMCA requirements.

      They are if they want to do business in the U.S..

    6. Re:The incredibly funny part is coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Apple files suit in federal court under the DMCA, claiming Cellebrite has created a circumvention device

      Cellebrite company is part of the (self-)chosen nation, based in Haifa or so, therefore criticism is impossible.

    7. Re:The incredibly funny part is coming... by jasenj1 · · Score: 1

      Only if the FBI took the phone to Israel to have the procedure done. If the cracking was performed on US soil, then they were within our jurisdiction.

    8. Re:The incredibly funny part is coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. The DMCA literally says the government, or contractors working on their behalf are exempt. And on top of that, you can't just sue the government, you need their permission (in the form of a law that allows specific provisions under which you may sue them).

    9. Re:The incredibly funny part is coming... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This method isn't that important anyway because it only affects older phones. Newer ones remain secure.

      The real fight is to come, when the government looks for a way to mandate the creation of backdoors.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:The incredibly funny part is coming... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're the idiot:

      17 U.S. Code 1201 (e) only applies if they did not crack the device before they had the contract with the FBI.

      Since they demonstrated the technique to the FBI prior to the FBI contracting with them, according to news reports and statements by the FBI, including statements to the court by FBI representatives requesting a stay, it's pretty clear that the technique existed before the FBI engaged them as contractors.

      While they may in fact be protected on the specific instance of the iPhone from San Bernardino, they are still liable under the act for having developed the technique prior to the contract.

      If they wish to roll this in under blanket protection from another contract for previous work, or an ongoing contract for existing work in progress, they can... assuming they are willing to disclose sufficient details of the contracts in question for the court to make a determination that the prior contract(s) do in fact apply to the current case.

      As they offered the breaking of the San Bernardino iPhone as a service for hire for the FBI, it's pretty clear that they intended to profit from the act of breaking into an iPhone (or more than one iPhone), and therefore the safe harbor provisions od 17 U.S. Code 1201 (g) *also* do not apply.

      Have fun in court, in any case, given that the discovery process will require disclosure of the techniques in front of Apple experts to ensure that the techniques did not in fact constitute new and unique DMCA violations prior to the contract being issues/engaged.

      Gotta love a case where the DMCA hoists the government on their own petard, particularly since the EFF has been trying unsuccessfully to get the anti-reverse engineering provision of the DMCA struct down for *literally years*.

      Perhaps the next time the EFF goes to try and get the DMCA anti-reverse engineering provision struck down, the FBI will be willing to file an Amicus Curie Brief on behalf of the EFF's position?

  36. On the bright side by wickerprints · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's look at the positives here:

    1. No legal precedent has been established that says the All Writs Act can be used to compel a company to write new software to circumvent an encryption scheme, or to force a company to turn over source code and signing keys.

    2. The FBI's legal credibility has been damaged by erroneously claiming that all technological avenues to breaking the encryption on the phone in question, only to later say that they did have another approach and that it was successful. Whether or not this is true, the contradiction is now on the record: they complained, "we need the court to force Apple to help us because there's no other way," then said "never mind, we did it another way in the end." This potentially could be used against them in future court cases.

    I, for one, would have preferred to see things settled decisively in our favor: that a legal precedent would be established enshrining the right to encryption. But things could have turned out a lot worse. We need to continue to fight for our right to privacy and security. It's not over, and it won't be over for a long, long time.

    1. Re:On the bright side by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "preferred to see things settled decisively in our favor: that a legal precedent would be established enshrining the right to encryption."
      "Justice Dept. withdraws legal action against Apple over San Bernardino iPhone"
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
      has the quote ""consistent with standard investigatory procedures.''"
      A method that is open court ready with the origins of any new case for any legal team to question in open court for all the other generation of phones?
      Ready for a set of state and federal task forces or federal funding to help with devices needing the same method at a city, state and federal level?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:On the bright side by Therefore+I+am · · Score: 1

      FBI flatfoots have essentially ensured that all future up-market mobile phones will be essentially closed to all shades of law enforcement.

      But then, if quantum computing lives up to it's promises..........

    3. Re:On the bright side by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      Plus since Cellebrite is a non-US company, they can't be "legally compelled" by anyone to reproduce this method for all the other iPhones that have been discussed by various District Attorneys.

    4. Re:On the bright side by HannethCom · · Score: 1

      1. The court ordered Apple to comply. Even though the Justice Department has withdrawn legal action against Apple, the precedent is now set. That is probably one of the reasons why it was withdrawn was that the order had been set and now cannot be contested except in a new case. The problem is any new case already has a legal precedent. Doesn't matter that they didn't comply, it is now on record.

      2. The FBI's legal credibility hasn't been damaged at all. Over 80% of the FBI cases are tossed out of court because the FBI brakes the law in finding evidence. Also, just with a bit of reading you would find that Cellebrite, a non-US company, approached them saying they THINK they can break into the phone. There is this thing in law called due diligence, and I'm sure they can prove that they did their due diligence.

      I personally call the FBI a criminal organization because they break the law more than the criminals probably do, and that is even with their far reaching extra leeway under the law. Then there is the CIA, but they are criminals basically by definition.

      --
      Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
    5. Re:On the bright side by wickerprints · · Score: 1

      In regard to legal precedent, you are mistaken. One ruling by a lower court does not establish precedent, because other courts can (and in fact, did) arrive at different conclusions in substantially similar cases. A precedent is set when the Supreme Court makes a ruling, or refuses to hear a case (in which the preceding ruling stands).

      The fact that Apple chose to contest the ruling and mounted a vigorous defense, pointing out all the flaws in the FBI's argument, demonstrated that the matter was not settled; moreover, it also showed that the FBI had not done its due diligence and that there was a real possibility that the Supreme Court could have ruled against the FBI, which would have been their worst outcome. As it became increasingly clear to the Bureau that: (1) Apple had called their bluff, (2) very strong and persuasive legal counterarguments had been made to undermine their position, (3) the media exposure would not work in their favor in the long run, (4) a legal battle could be very costly and time consuming and Apple has extremely deep pockets, and (5) the possibility that this could become a Congressional issue--you know, with actual citizens who would be affected and might think about how their representatives stand on the matter of government accountability and the right to privacy...well, it's not surprising that they didn't keep pushing. It's always easier for the government to back off and reserve the right to litigate or settle at some other time when the conditions are ripe.

      While there is a great deal of corruption and hypocrisy at all levels of the government, and a corresponding lack of accountability, it is important to be able to recognize when we have not fallen further, because if all one can see is things getting worse and worse, it would be all too easy to simply give up. Apple has shown they are willing to fight this, if not directly for the consumer, then for its own self interest, which happens to align with the consumer on this matter. There is the need for educating people on the importance of information security through strong encryption. That this has played out in the public eye has been a good thing. But if all you can do is bitch about the government as a criminal enterprise and see everyone as being doomed, you are no better than those who are seeking to pick away at our rights

    6. Re:On the bright side by houghi · · Score: 1

      About No 2. So we now know that they lied. So what? We also know that the CIA lied and that policeofficers lie and military investigators and politicians.

      It means nothing. If a todler steals a cookie and he is only told 'you are not allowed to do that' he will again and again till he dies of diabetis.
      Just before that is is the parents who blame the other for not taking action. As long as there are no consequences, the toddler will steal cookies and why not? What would for the todler be the reason to NOT steal it.

      You could explain he will get diabetis and he will not understand and it is thus not an issue in its mind. He will be told that he is not allowed to get a cookie, but that is just noise he just does not listen to.

      You could not have cookies in the house and that would mean punish yourself. That does not mean he will not start eating sugar or stealing cookies elsewhere.

      We all know what the answer is. You punish them. That can mean a timeout or whatever and then the kid will understand that if he takes a cookie, there will be consequences.

      So for now it means nothing.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    7. Re:On the bright side by andyring · · Score: 1

      But I bet they would be more than happy to do it for the right dollar amount.

    8. Re:On the bright side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. They'll just wait a while for the publicity to die down, then try to use this interpretation of the All Writs Act on a smaller company that can't afford to fight it to get their precedent.

      And probably do so under seal next time, so none of this pesky bad publicity will get in the way.

    9. Re:On the bright side by powerlord · · Score: 1

      But I bet they would be more than happy to do it for the right dollar amount.

      which ... since it requires physical possession of the phone, is still much less damaging than the remote exploit the FBI was looking for.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    10. Re:On the bright side by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      One court issued an order, which Apple was legally challenging. That isn't a precedent until there's an actual judicial decision on the challenge. If the FBI tries with another phone, Apple will bring out their same legal arguments, and no court has ruled that they are invalid.

      To put it another way, there's a precedent that the FBI can ask for such a court order, but not that they can make it stick. That's not what the FBI wanted.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  37. And look at that! by BronsCon · · Score: 2

    It only took 1/4 as long as they spent bitching about Apple not helping with it!

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    1. Re:And look at that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the FBI had broken the phone much earlier and was only using it this for a court case against apple.

  38. Third party breached iPhone is a week ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    What was it, about a week since the FBI announced they outsourced the breaching? And now its successful. So how it plays is that Apple's phones are not that secure in the public perception.

    If Apple had assisted the FBI they could have maintained the perception of security. So their ethical stance had a price, which is a pretty normal thing. But its a short term price. As Apple moves more and more of its security from software to the hardware, it helps to make one's own chips, such breaches will be more and more difficult. Old iPhones being breachable would be more of a benefit if and when we get to that point. So, market loss today, but maybe a major selling point for the iPhone 8 in a couple of years.

  39. Interesting comments from a tech crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised Slashdot readers aren't more well-versed in computer security. The comments seem to indicate the readership believes that this "secure enclave" makes the iPhone secure, and without it the phone is insecure. In reality, the "secure enclave" is no better than mere security through obscurity and having physical access to a device is typically considered to mean the attacker has already won.

    This meme that "secure enclave" means something needs to just die. It's not much, if any, better than ROT-13'ing your plaintext before encrypting with AES.

    1. Re:Interesting comments from a tech crowd by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      You're not well versed in computer security, obviously. So you apply the assumption that all slashdotters are as ill-informed as yourself. It *is* a lot better than ROT-13 (that comparison is absurdly silly) and if you care to actually read the technical documentation, you might begin to understand it. It's probably not 100% uncrackable, but it's pretty darn close.

    2. Re: Interesting comments from a tech crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start with this:

      http://security.stackexchange.com/a/115069

      Progress to reading real books, from which you will learn even more things.

      Finally, try to stop being such a nigger lover. I mean, I'm no racist, but it's a little weird for a white man to love nigger dick so much.

  40. Leaked to the internet by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    And you know good & well, that within 3-4 months some government somewhere will pay someone to leak it to them, causing it to be leaked onto the web.

  41. Decryption key on device means device insecure by perpenso · · Score: 1

    If the computer/iTunes backups are encrypted then like the data on the phone the FBI or anyone else can't do much.

    The weak link is the passcode on the phone, the passcode is the only thing that keeps the decryption key on the phone secure. The fact that the phone has the decryption reduces its security. In more traditional security the decryption key is generated as need by entering a passphrase and erased after use, not stored somewhere.

  42. Israel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet they just sent them an identical unlocked phone back with fake data ;)

    1. Re:Israel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, Vet the company. Send them a test iPhone with known data, lock it. And see if the company can unlock the phone and verify the data matches.

  43. sorry, clicked on wrong reply button by perpenso · · Score: 1

    I apologize for any confusion, I clicked on the wrong reply button. Doh!

  44. Passcode broken, not encryption broken by perpenso · · Score: 1

    If a computer or iTunes backup is encrypted then like the data on the phone the FBI or anyone else can't do much.

    The weak link is the passcode on the phone. The passcode is the only thing that keeps the decryption key on the phone secure, and for many its a four digit passcode. It does not matter how strong your encryption is if you only need four numeric digits to get to the decryption key.

    The fact that the phone has the decryption reduces its security. In more traditional security the decryption key is generated as need by entering a passphrase and erased after use, not stored somewhere.

  45. It's a double PR debacle for Apple/Cook by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1, Troll

    Apple claimed that it wanted to defend the privacy of its customers. Great.

    Then they extended that principle to defending the privacy of a known terrorist, who is dead, and who consented to having his activities monitored (because the phone was owned by his employer, the County of San Bernardino). In this case, the county government was Apple's customer, and Apple was going against the wishes of its customer by protecting the privacy of the county's most nightmare employee. That's a PR debacle.

    And if the FBI is telling the truth about having cracked the phone, the vaunted privacy that Cook pledged to defend is rather diminished. (Most customers will never give any thought to technical details, like the 5C lacking the security chip that later models have.) That's the second PR debacle.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:It's a double PR debacle for Apple/Cook by Trongy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The history of cryptography has shown that almost any cyrptosystem can be broken with enough time and effort.

      The FBI chose to use this case as a pretext to demand that Apple provide them which what is effectively a master key to break into any iphone with negligible time or effort.

      Apple's contention was that the master key solution was not warranted and they have been proven correct.

    2. Re: It's a double PR debacle for Apple/Cook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're wronger than wrong. First off, while Apple did sell the phone to the government entity in question, it is then their property and they and Apple owe each other nothing. So your ranting about 'the wishes of its customer' is utter crap.

      The identity (and crimes) of the phone's user are also irrelevant though law enforcement worshippers like you do love to drag out emotionally charged terms since your arguments are worthless otherwise. Apple wasn't protecting THIS phone, they were protecting ALL phones, in particular because the illegal thing the FBI tried to get them to do could be used to attack any iPhone other than their most recent ones.

      As to Apple's PR: when you have a spin machine and you happen to be morally right anyway it seems easy to promote yourself. I've never been a fan of their walled garden philosophy but it worked well here, and it'll work even better when they come out with new models with even more anti-FBI features in them because after this crap it's what I'd be doing if I worked there, with or without orders to.

      I may even switch to iPhones myself. Never owned one but I not only appreciate what they did here but their architecture is sound and getting better. One still has to disable iCloud and anything else online you don't control the keys to in order to be more government-proof but such is life.

      So you're wrong about everything and the people of the world will be a little more secure from entities that can truly harm them. Seems like a win-win

    3. Re:It's a double PR debacle for Apple/Cook by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      You didn't read the post you responded to.

  46. Actually we don't know they used Cellebrite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cellebrite sell a number of bits of kit that are plausibly in the price range of the quote that people are basing this assertion on e.g. UFED Touch which can't access a modern iPhone without knowing the passcode in advance.

    It might be nothing more than a co-incidence that they bought a Cellebrite box & support contract at around the same time.

    You'd expect virtually every digital forensics lab in every law enforcement to have Cellebrite hardware, and update it periodically.

    Its a longish bow to draw that a Cellebrite bill paid at the same time means they are the ones helping the FBI in this specific case.

  47. DMCA the bastards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so.
    it appears the Fascists can't follow the Laws they themselves promulgate.
    such a disgrace has been wrought upon The People that they're sworn to "Serve" and "Protect"
    may the World shed a tear -- for what was once America, is now become (even more deeply) Amerika
    shame.
    Shame!

  48. let's hope Apple will learn their lesson by ooloorie · · Score: 1, Funny

    If you're going to build phones with weak security and backdoors, like the iPhone 5C, don't pretend publicly that they are secure and don't get into a pissing contest with the FBI over it.

    1. Re:let's hope Apple will learn their lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI started it.

  49. Next up Kansas shooter's phone? by antifoidulus · · Score: 0

    So next will the FBI be investigating the Kansas workplace shooter's phone? Or does the FBI only give 2 shits about workplace shootings when it involves teh Muzlimz.

    Ordinary (Christian) Americans shooting up their workplace? Why that's just plain patriotism and 2nd amendment celebrations!

    1. Re:Next up Kansas shooter's phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the Kansas workplace shooter have ties to terrorism that I have not heard about??

      Ohh wait your trying to accuse others of being biased when its obvious you are the one with bias. Fucking looser.

    2. Re:Next up Kansas shooter's phone? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      So basically if the result is the same but the motive is different(but still intentional) then the one with the "worse" motive is more dangerous? Yeah, that makes tons of sense(also if you are going to call someone a "loser", fucking spell it right)

  50. Dick pics. by Izuzan · · Score: 1

    Being that its the ONLY piece of electronics they didnt destroy tells me that it had fuck all on it.

  51. Well-known IT security axiom by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If someone can get physical access, then your security paradigm is already broken. Very few systems can withstand direct physical assault; it's not like the iPhone is built to the NSA's CSfC guidelines and meant to be completely secure against all threats. It's a consumer-level mobile phone; mass-produced with a unsecured supply chain and an open-sourced operating system. It says quite a bit to Apple's security engineers that it took this level of work to get access. Anyone who thinks "oh, this is proof that iPhones are totally unsecure!" obviously can't comprehend the level of effort it took to get into this phone.

    If a rapid NAND mirroring system is what broke this, I'm betting that Apples next major security upgrade will include some type of encryption that is uncopiable, Slashdot even had an article about this that incorporates unreproducible physical defects unique to each NAND chip.

    1. Re:Well-known IT security axiom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Slashdot even had an article about this [slashdot.org] that incorporates unreproducible physical defects unique to each NAND chip."

      That article talks about using the pattern of bad blocks in the NAND chips to fingerprint a device. What stops a NAND chip simulator from reading the NAND chip, noting the bad blocks, and returning "block bad" when attempts to read or write are made to that block?

      The article doesn't link to a paper, so I guess we'll never hear about mitigation strategies.

    2. Re:Well-known IT security axiom by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Even if it was that approach that broke it, it doesn't indicate that iPhone is secure by itself. It only indicates that a 4-digit PIN is not secure when it can be bruteforced, but we knew that already, anyway. And everyone who understands how software and hardware works knows that everything can be bruteforced with sufficient time and money. The only foolproof protection against bruteforce is a key that's long enough.

    3. Re:Well-known IT security axiom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone can get physical access, then your security paradigm is already broken.

      Unfortunately, "physical access" can be tricky enough. Even a hobbyist can read whatever he wants from a desoldered flash chip - and run phone software in an emulator on the extracted data. This allows bruteforcing, after a fail the emulator tries to erase the "simulated flash" but then you simply restart the simulation and try another code.

      But get a device where everything is on a single chip. The decryption processor and the flash memory. There are no lines out for anyone to meddle with - other than lines controlled by that decryption processor. "Physical access" tricks will still do the trick as above - but this time it involves taking the lid off a chip and connect 16/32/64 probes to the chip surface. Which is very tricky. Not only do you need extremely accurate positioning - but you can't use simple metal probes because they have way too much capacitance. The tip of these probes will need to have amplifier circuits integrated on them - so they can snoop chip signals without overloading the small weak transistors inside. Position a probe wrong once, and you probably destroy the chip or cause incidents that the processor can detect.

      So now we need very sophisticated equipment, and a clean room for the work. A dust particle can short out the chip - oxygen from air may damage it. And to make this much harder still, they can cover the chip surface with gunk that prevents probes from reaching the surface. Removing the gunk without destroying the circuits will be extremely hard - stuff that dissolves gunk also dissolves silicone.

    4. Re:Well-known IT security axiom by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      And I've read in a few places it costs around $15,000 or so to break on just this level; but I'm really confused as to why the FBI doesn't already own such devices since they seem to be for sale on Cellebrite's website. And their even on Ebay for only $256!

  52. Typo by dbIII · · Score: 0

    "ATM machine network" should be read as "Automatic Teller Machine network".

  53. Apple got away disobeying a court order... by mi · · Score: 0

    I wish I'd be able to do something like that some day — with Slashdot cheering for and supporting me.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  54. doesn't elaborate.. doesn't reveal... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Why are we permitting such secrecy? It's all bullshit.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  55. How are you tied? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    All of the Google stuff runs on iOS also. Sometimes better...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  56. Iphones are unsecure? NOOO way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no, iphones are unsecure...

  57. Go a bit further by s.petry · · Score: 1

    I agree with everything you said, but you missed a huge motivation for the FBI to at least give the impression that they hacked the phone. FUD is a very powerful tool. Not only can they intimidate suspects with "we'll get it anyway", but they can intimidate companies the same way.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Go a bit further by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was never about gaining access to a phone in their possession, it was about being able to hack phones via the cellular phone network, with out the knowledge of the owner of the phone and marketing that access to protect another corporate player M$ who is providing that access for a fee. It was all about forcing Apple away from selling security and privacy as a luxury feature worth paying for. There is a huge difference between being able to hack a phone in your possession and being able to hack it remotely. When push came to shove the US government and M$, lost to Apple and the internet and it won't be forgotten, talk about burning bridges.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Go a bit further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illuminati confirmed

    3. Re:Go a bit further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question is, How long will it take before the FBI lets everyone know what important info was gleaned? Never and Nothing.

  58. Reasons for skepticism? by shanen · · Score: 1

    Where was the prior reference? Anyway...

    The FBI might bother to lie about it if they realized they can achieve their real objective in a very practical way and without the legal bother. The FBI would prefer to simply outlaw encryption, but that is actually impossible, since you can never make ideas go away. In contrast, you may be able to FOOL people into believing that encryption doesn't exist, and in particular that Apple does not have it.

    Two more bases for the FBI lying about it. (1) They decided it would be sufficient if they just scare potential terrorists away from using iPhones. (2) They closed the loop from the other side and don't want to admit it. Since they had all the metadata, perhaps they have found and dumped every data source this phone was in contact with. (Again, not a capability they would want to disclose.)

    Prediction: Whatever the reality, the FBI will never reveal any useful information that could have come only from this iPhone.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Reasons for skepticism? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The FBI's real objective was not the information on the phone. It was to establish a precedent that companies can be forced to destroy their own security because the FBI said so. They lost, and covered it up by at least allegedly achieving their ostensible objective.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  59. Timmy Gotta Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CEO Queer Fucker' ass is wide open for abuse!

    YEEEEHAAAA!

    Ha ha

    Apple Fuckers

  60. San Ber-nar-dino by frankenheinz · · Score: 1

    You spelled it wrong.

    --
    The law is not an ass. No really.
  61. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Apple, if you won't break this quietly for us, we'll take it to court. If it looks like you're going to prevail, we'll withdraw and tell everyone we got in without your help. On the open market."

  62. Faked? by HeadSoft · · Score: 1

    How do we know they didn't just make up the "success" just like they made up the fact they needed the "evidence" in the first place? All the information there was probably available as "metadata" anyway, right?

    Since they couldn't force Apple's hand and set legal precedent to abuse, they had to save face and re-establish that "Our secret science labs can do anything!"

  63. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FBI admits perjury in claiming Apple's assistance was necessary to unlock the phone.

  64. Fuck Microsoft's Windows 10 spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm fine with it. At least it showed that Apple give a shit about your privacy, unlike semen-caked Microsoft and their Windows 10 dildo.

  65. Israel can hack iphones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just one more reason not to own or trust "spy phones".

  66. once the 3rd arty stepped up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    once the 3rd arty stepped up t took what a few days so the level s really NOTHING
    and now you can say ts the iHACKEDPhone

  67. PIN was 'SHER' by rlp · · Score: 1

    Took a few tries but after the phone got a text message the FBI finally figured out the pin was 'SHER'.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  68. So, Apple didn't help them? How do we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wherever the news goes on this story, I'd look in the opposite direction. So, given that Apple's source code isn't open source, how do we know that they didn't put the back door in there for the Federal government? I'll take my Nexus phone that is running Omnirom (without GAPPS) and using nothing but F-Droid for its software repository any day of the week over iOS.

  69. Bear in mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That this is a previous-generation iPhone (a 5C). The same crack is unlikely to work on newer iPhones which have the Secure Enclave hardware.

  70. Parellel Construction by WorkingDead · · Score: 1

    I think it looks like a case of Parallel Construction. They have had the capability all along but haven't had a legit reason to use it publicly. They probably had to rent out their own system to this security company to do the work for them to maintain deniability.

    1. Re:Parellel Construction by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The FBI had a court order to search the work phone of a known terrorist, and was proceeding with the permission of the actual owner. Anything they got from the phone was legitimate and admissible in court. The only way parallel construction would come into this would be if the FBI had illegitimately gotten information on some terrorism backer and was going to claim that the information on that phone is what got them investigating that person.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  71. Title and description are wrongly spelled! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's Bernardino, not Bernadio! Not only is it mispronounced, but now misspelled!

  72. Security isn't a state, it's a process by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

    I see some people commenting "so I guess the iPhone wasn't secure after all." This is something of a misconception of how IT security works. The only way to permanently secure any computer is to destroy it. Modern systems are so complicated that, given enough competent hackers trying to pry their way in, somebody will eventually. That's why it's terribly important to apply security patches ASAP and move on from EOL'd products. The fact that the shooter died on 2 December and his phone was just unlocked in late March of the next year indicates that iPhone security is actually quite good, considering his phone didn't receive any updates for four months and just got cracked now. By contrast, Windows is so insecure that (generally speaking) one could hack any Windows device if it didn't get its updates on patch Tuesday.

  73. Great... so, what did they get from it? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Fantastic - they finally quit their bitching and did the damn work to get in... but what did they get out of it?

  74. Zimmermann Telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else think that the NSA/FBI already cracked the phone but brought in a 3rd party so they didn't have to admit that they cracked the phone?

  75. I disagree by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    In all practical purposes you'd be correct.

    In theory a system can be 100% secure. It's just incredibly hard to prove such that in all practicality it's unprofitable.. Particularly with the platform continually evolving and adding features and third party software.

    Which is why I think there should be a law requiring security updates to phones for all major version numbers of it's software. Something like 15 years will do.

    Which will probably then evolve into the hardware and software being sold separately.

    1. Re:I disagree by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Decrypting ciphers is a problem in NP, in that you can easily verify a possible key. Currently, we don't know how to break AES-256 in any reasonable time. If we were to find a way to solve NP-hard problems in polynomial time, we could break all ciphers in polynomial time. This means there is no proof of security. There are proofs based on assumptions that look very reasonable, and in practice we act as if NP-hard problems are of exponential complexity, but we can't prove it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  76. No need to speculate if you think they're bluffing by sminkin · · Score: 2

    If you think they're bluffing about breaking the security, why not get someone (with a budget for this kind of thing) to buy the same phone, put in a secret message, set it to erase after 10 failures, and hire the same company to tell you the message. Either they can do it or they can't.

  77. Saving face? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I highly doubt they did.

  78. and learned he wasn't a terrorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who will go to prison for crying wolf inside the FBI?

  79. Extraordinary claims require.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since nobody is expecting any valuable (or even moderately interesting) data to be on the phone (the whole premise of the case rests on a lie), there isn't ever going to be anything in court. You're probably not going to find out anything.

    So: Suppose you never find out any solid information. What's your default guess? You need to evaluate an untestable hypothesis. What is most likely? Which side's claim is the most absurd? What more closely matches your experiences and knowledge?

    It got unlocked it unless someone finds out information to the contrary.

    Disagree? The good news is that you might be correct. The bad news is that you're definitely a religious nutcase, no "might" about it.

  80. So many disturbing questions... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    (1) is this even true or are they merely saving face? If the latter, i cringe about the gummint even more than i did last week...
    (2) if true, does the 'vendor' get to move this vulnerability through the usual channels / tell apple first / do the right thing as a tech company?
    (3) if they cannot, due to national security grumbles, are they in lockdown over this?
    (4) how long do you think that will remain the case?
    (5) if true, they have now told every blackhat and knucklehead tat this is now possible - huge gain over "is it possible?"
    (6) if cracking an iphone is a zebra an no longer a unicorn* doesn't apple get a chance to know the vulnerability/exploit and protect their business?
    (7) is the gummint smart/good/interested enough to sit down with all parties and work this out like grownups?
    ---
    *: yeah, i saw the articles about siberia, point stands.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:So many disturbing questions... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The vulnerabilities that were presumably used won't work on any phone Apple currently sells. The crack almost certainly had something to do with the fact that the lockout delay and wipe are in software, which could be circumvented. That ceased to apply with the first iPhone model after the one the FBI wanted broken.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  81. Good job FBI!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now do your job and arrest your Director for violating the DMCA. Rules are rules, amirite?

  82. Not only that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the FBI was attempting to perpetrate indentured servitude.

  83. My guess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The director traded in that iPhone 5c for credit on a new iPhone 6s Plus months ago. Some tween in Bangladesh owns that 5c now.

  84. The facts are just wrong by eples · · Score: 1

    What we do know is that last week the FBI contracted Israeli software provider, Cellebrite, to help break into the phone.

    No, we do not know that. The contract was for software licensing renewal on a handful of servers. If you READ the contract, that's what it effing says. Just click the link for christ's sake.

    --
    I'm a 2000 man.
  85. Here's one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comey should be arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced to the maximum for attempting to violate the DMCA under color of law.

  86. All computer users deserve freedom, security by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    This method isn't that important anyway because it only affects older phones. Newer ones remain secure.

    Proprietary software cannot be deemed secure by its users, those who use proprietary software can't be sure what data is collected, where it is sent, and have no legal way to edit the program to make it obey only the computer's owner. Apple is certainly not a trustworthy party in this. Also, all computer users deserve software freedom and the security that is available to free software, not just users of the latest iThings.

  87. I smell bovine excrement by ArgosSaturn · · Score: 1

    The FBI just happened to find an Israeli company ??, sounds more like they got NSA to bust it, using this cover, so as to not give away the jewels that they can break into this system. Details of the situation seem to be scarce.

  88. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do you think they want the data??? or do you think they want others to not have the data?? are they covering their tracks, or trying to track back and find leadership? Also what would still be useful? How long have the been telling the whole world the want the data? What would still be viable data, some messages or calls to foreign burner phones? Whats the chance they didn't just waste money time and make fools of themselves?

  89. My guess is they found out why it was locked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He did not want his olde lady to know he was looking at porn

  90. So what data did they get? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was it worth the effort? Anything at all? Without that, there is no proof - they're just saying hey there is a doomsday device, but you can't see it. It's a simple deterrent.

  91. Message from Big Brother by rch7 · · Score: 1

    Yes, assume it is lie and all your data is very secure and nobody can access it, even using heavy rusty wrench. Keep recording all your interesting activity in the phone. That is exactly what we need ;)

  92. The dormant cyber pathogen is loose! by LostMonk · · Score: 1

    The dormant cyber pathogen is loose!! Run for your lives!!

  93. Video of iPhone 5S brute force unlock by partofthepuzzle · · Score: 1

    MDSec has a video showing a brute force of an iPhone 5S unlock (yes, I know the FBI phone is a 5C). I think it uses about $200 in parts:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  94. soo stoopid.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call the bluff,,
    What was gleaned from this adventure?
    what was/is the return on the investment here?
    was it really worth, the $, time and effort??
    pathetic

  95. The best solution for Apple by bobvious · · Score: 1

    Given the choices for Apple, I suspect that they passed-on the information (under the table) needed to crack the phone so that they wouldn't be forced to do it openly, so they pretend to be hanging onto the moral high ground, though seeming not as clever at protection as they claimed.

  96. First try by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Password was 1234.

  97. Apple's Turn? by Arterion · · Score: 1

    So can Apple now file suit under some provision (maybe under DMCA or iOS EULA?) and ask for the vulnerability to be disclosed to them, or something along those lines?

    --
    "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild