NSA Couldn't Hack San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone; Now Working On Exploiting IoT (theintercept.com)

The FBI did turn to NSA when it was trying to hack into the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone, according to an NSA official. But to many's surprise, one of the world's most powerful intelligence agencies couldn't hack into that particular iPhone 5c model. "We don't do every phone, every variation of phone," said Richard Ledgett, the NSA's deputy director. "If we don't have a bad guy who's using it, we don't do that." According to Ledgett, apparently the agency has to prioritize its resources and thus it doesn't know how to get into every popular gadget. According to the report, the agency is now looking to exploit Internet of Things, including biomedical devices. The Intercept reports: Biomedical devices could be a new source of information for the NSA's data hoards -- "maybe a niche kind of thing ... a tool in the toolbox," he said, though he added that there are easier ways to keep track of overseas terrorists and foreign intelligence agents. When asked if the entire scope of the Internet of Things -- billions of interconnected devices -- would be "a security nightmare or a signals intelligence bonanza," he replied, "Both."

Comments

Why would they have admitted they could?

[hsmith]

Anyone with a brain knew there was nothing of value on that phone. They shredded their two personal phones. If the NSA has the capabilities why would they have wasted them on such a dumb fucking case that was a loser?

Re:Why would they have admitted they could?

[geekmux]

Anyone with a brain knew there was nothing of value on that phone. They shredded their two personal phones. If the NSA has the capabilities why would they have wasted them on such a dumb fucking case that was a loser?

The hell makes you think the NSAs hacking capabilities have fuck-all to do with some loser of a legal case?

Regardless if they want to admit they have the capabilities or not, they don't have to ask permission. They tried that with Mr. Cook solely to establish legal precedent and failed. This would have purely been an intelligence organization breaking in, which hardly requires a pretty please may I...

I have a hard time even swallowing the claim that they could not break in to the damn thing. Chances are that's just smoke and mirrors too.

Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a list of reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things:

1) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I sleep.

2) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pee.

3) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I make kaka.

4) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pleasure myself.

5) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I wash my body in the shower.

6) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I relax in the tub.

7) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I brush my teeth.

8) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I make passionate love to my wife.

9) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I brush my hair.

10) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I read a book.

11) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I read Slashdot.

12) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I bake cake.

13) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I put in my contact lenses.

14) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I get ready to play golf.

15) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I do my laundry.

16) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I think about rugby.

17) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I tie my shoes.

18) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I celebrate the 4th of July.

19) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I water my flowers.

20) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I eat ham.

21) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I use my stapler to staple documents.

22) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I chew bubble gum.

23) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I check the oil in my car.

24) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I look for my TV remote.

25) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I blow my nose.

26) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I rearrange my stamp collection.

27) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I listen to the Backstreet Boys.

28) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I do my calisthenics.

29) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I search for a paper clip.

30) Internet of Things devices could send information about me to advertisers.

31) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I sleep.

32) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I pee.

33) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I make kaka.

34) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I pleasure myself.

35) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I wash my body in the shower.

36) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I relax in the tub.

37) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I brush my teeth.

38) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I make passionate love to my wife.

39) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I brush my hair.

40) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I read a book.

41) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I read Slashdot.

42) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I bake cake.

43) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly coll

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Who believes anything the NSA says at this point?

I don't know if they can hack that phone or not, but I'm not believing what they tell me about it.

It might coincidentally be the truth, but I'm not taking their word for it.

IoT is the new mesh. We should exploit it too

[fustakrakich]

Urbanites won't need an ISP once everything connects to each other. It shouldn't be too difficult to spy on the NSA while they're spying on us. Surf's up. Catch the wave.

Re: IoT is the new mesh. We should exploit it too

[NotAPK]

You're absolutely right about the mesh network being insecure: but SO IS THE INTERNET (see NSA and Snowdon) and the physical and routing layers should always be regarded as untrusted.

The only solution is to use a secure VPN at all times. Of course you'll need an end point at some point, but I'd rather my end point was on a different continent, and ideally a country with minimal treaties with my own.

Of course performance for such a thing will be in the toilet. Ever used Tor? It's slow as well. But if faced with a choice between security and privacy (lumping them together) vs convenience, I know exactly which one I choose every time. Of course I'm not normal.

Pinocchio nose

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of fucking liars. Some private company contracted by FBI could do it and the NSA couldn't ? Maybe the Sheeple believe it, but I don't.

Re:Pinocchio nose

[Tailhook]

While I have a healthy skepticism about NSA claims it actually aligns with my expectations that they're not really prepared for this sort of work. The NSA is a bureau of lawyers, just like the engineer-free NTSB and NRC or the analyst-free SEC, etc. There are some limited number of people with actual technical skills in these TLAs, but they have no authority and they are kept carefully on a leash lest they notice something inconvenient to the horde of lawyers.

Maybe the NSA had real in-house talent during the cold war, back when the adversary was a hostile nation and they couldn't just have some star-chamber court force the Soviets to open up their telecom systems. Today it's a big collection of lawyers that spend their time directing and coercing third-parties into compromising their systems for the NSA's convenience. It's a lot more efficient to make some telecom build the road in and tap tens of millions of devices and users than to maintain the talent, equipment and do the difficult and costly R&D necessary to pick apart some phone at the board level.

Re:Pinocchio nose

[TheGratefulNet]

(holds up sign) citation needed.

collecting and analyzing data is not the work of lawyers and managers. maybe those were the people you dealt with (?) but should we think the nsa is understaffed wrt hacking talent?

its funny that people argue about this or that news report regarding the three letter agencies. as if we'd even know or anyone who could talk about it, would know a fucking thing.

argue about whether batman could beat jesus in a go-kart race. if you like fantasy and guessing, at least be creative about it and don't kid yourself that its really real.

the nsa could have the most advanced computing center in the world. or it may not. how the hell would we know? the point is that they are secret and the bigger point is that we, somehow, as a people, have allowed an agency to grow to the point where we have zero insight as to what goes on.

is this something the founding fathers would have thought to be OK? again, playing the fantasy/guess game, I don't think they'd approve of where we have gone and what level of power we've signed away to countless government orgs.

Internet of Deez Nuts

[PopeRatzo]

In ten years, when the NSA is monitoring your insulin pump and IUD, maybe Sir Tim Berners-Lee can come out with another think piece about he's shocked, shocked, I tell you that the "Internet of Things" has become the biggest surveillance network in history.

And we can all go, "If we'd only had some inkling that this could happen".

Now go shopping with your digital wallet because all you have to do is wave your magic smartphone and everybody behind you in line will think you're just the coolest.

WTF kind of idiot question is this?

[Nutria]

When asked if the entire scope of the Internet of Things -- billions of interconnected devices -- would be "a security nightmare or a signals intelligence bonanza,"

The very fact that it's a security nightmare means that it's a SIGINT bonanza.

Easy to test

[cdsparrow]

1. Get an identical 5c and ios version that the SB phone was using.
2. Put tons of links in the web history to places you can monitor hits.
3. Lock the phone and reset the appleid password.
4. Throw the phone over a fence at Fort Meade.
5. Sit back and watch for those hits. I bet it won't take long.
6. ???
7. Profit!

You're not thinking like an intelligence agency

[Solandri]

The San Bernardino iPhone was too high-profile a case. If the NSA had cracked it for the FBI, then everyone would've known they could crack the iPhone's encryption. Apple would've immediately set about changing it, people with stuff to hide from the NSA would've immediately started adding an additional layer(s) of encryption on top, sources of intel the NSA was getting fro iPhones would've dried up. If the NSA could crack it, the last thing they would do is reveal they could. If you reveal it, that's the last time you get to use it. If you keep it secret, you get to use it over and over again.

So the "fact" that the NSA couldn't crack it for the FBI doesn't really tell us anything - that would've been their story whether or not they could crack it. Heck, for all we know, the NSA did crack it, and this whole story about the FBI paying some random hacker is a charade to cover it up.

Re:You're not thinking like an intelligence agency

[SvnLyrBrto]

If whatever J. Random Hacker the FBI wound up paying to do so could have that iPhone, theres no way the NSA doesn't have the ability as well. So, really, the secret is out and everyone does know that they have the ability.

They just didn't want to do so. Whether that's because they're keeping their heads down for a while post-Snowden, or they didn't think it was worth their time, or they had some *other* backdoor they didn't want to reveal, or if it was political wrangling and/or acrimony between the two agencies, is the question.

Internet of Total Control

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

When we know for a fact that IoT will only subject us to even more intrusive data collection, spying and constant privacy violations, why would anyone willingly put something like that in their homes? We can also assume that bad actors know of these capabilities and they're practically useless in preventing them from carrying out whatever they would do. To me it seems this is all about mass crowd control. Creating an extensive backlog of every citizens life, one that can be revisited when necessary.