FBI Hires Cellebrite To Crack San Bernadino iPhone (reuters.com) 237
tlhIngan writes: Earlier this week, the FBI asked the court for a continuance so it could do some research into a proposed method of cracking the [iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino, California shooters]. It turns out the FBI has contracted Cellebrite for $15,000 to break into the phone. Cellebrite is an Israeli software provider specializing in mobile phone forensics software. If they succeed, it would mean Apple would no longer need to be involved.
apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them (Score:5, Funny)
apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them. Now will they be that much of a dick?
Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them (Score:5, Interesting)
I for one hope so. The DMCA is a piece of shit legislation, and if apple uses it it will be the only time it is used properly. to poke a stick in the eye of government goons.
Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them (Score:4, Informative)
Have fun with that. THEM Hey FBI can ya get me a court order to do this? FBI Sure here ya go. The judge said I could is a rather good defence for a civil issue.
Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them (Score:4, Insightful)
The judge can't compel you to do something illegal. Neither can a police officer.
Not in Canada (Score:2)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... [www.cbc.ca]
Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them (Score:5, Insightful)
The judge can't compel you to do something illegal. Neither can a police officer.
That's begging the question slightly. "Following the directions of a peace officer" in an emergency is on the rulebooks in most states. This is why a cop can flip traffic around and tell you to go the wrong way down a one-way street because there's an accident in an intersection, despite the presence of a marked "One way" sign, which is usually what wrong-way laws are keyed off.
Don't confuse "illegal" with "unsafe" or "unreasonable"... The latter standards apply more broadly.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get this police hate. Every dealing I've had, they've been very professional. Maybe its just this state (Vermont)? Out of all the professions I've dealt with, other than say Doctors, I'd put police right up there with how they carry themselves and act towards the public.
Re: (Score:3)
DCMA would be civil a judges order for a criminal case provides pretty good cover. As far as criminal the state can grant you immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Can they even use it against a foreign company? I've been ignoring (or occasionally mocking if I'm in the mood) DMCA notices I receive because I'm not in the US and it doesn't apply to me. As a side note it's amazing how many companies don't seem to get that.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what would you like a changed DMCA to be like? Should host sites be legally liable for user-supplied content, which means they wouldn't dare use any? Should copyright holders be unable to challenge mass infringements of their copyright? Please explain.
Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither side requires burden of proof at the beginning.
The "conversation" goes like this:
Content owner: "this looks like ours, service please take it down" /takes it down /restores content.
Uploader: "no, this is mine. YouTube , please put it back up"
Sadly, the conversation actually goes like this:
Content owner's bot: "this looks like ours, YouTube please take it down"
YouTube bot: takes it down
YouTube bot: all revenue from your channel now goes to Content owner
YouTube bot: copyright strike against you, you can't upload a video over 15 minutes
Uploader: "no, this is mine. YouTube, please put it back up"
Uploader, a week later: "Heloooo! YouTube?! Is there anyone there?! I filled out all your forms, but nothing happened"
Uploader, a month later: "Do any actual humans work at Google? "
Uploader eventually dies of old age
Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them (Score:2)
No. That's only true if the uploader isn't a multinational corporation.
In your dreams (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you want to slap stiff penalties on anyone suspected of filing a false takedown notice? (You said "instant", which precludes due process or even investigation). What's a false notice? Courts sometimes have to rule on infringement cases, since there can be a thin but fuzzy line between derivative and non-derivative, and fair use is not legally defined. Do we need ruling separating things into infringing, non-infringing, and obviously non-infringing?
Whose court will they sue them in? (Score:2)
With a low UID like yours, I suspect you and I may be of similar vintage. I therefore trust you'll understand when I say "you can't fight City Hall".
Re: (Score:3)
DCMA...
Not as interesting solution as patching the vulnerability shortly
after this phone gets hacked.
It appears to me that as an Israeli company they are far enough from US law
that they could be a vent for a secret NSA/CIA method and secret. They are
also far enough to make it hard for a US court to compel them to act.
The $15,000 price tag seems low for anything involving software.
Might be OK for a hardware hack that begins with a slurp of the
data from the RAM. As a qualified forensic service, data retenti
Re: (Score:2)
But Celebrite is the one cracking the phone. Would an Israeli company be punishable under the DMCA?
then the TPTA may force them to be locked up (Score:2)
then the TPTA may force them to be locked up. I think the fbi can get them in to a very nice club fed.
Re: (Score:2)
Cellebrite has an American arm and is already the de facto forensics software for law enforcement in us and Canada.
Maybe for mobile but for PCs all I ever see is EnCase [guidancesoftware.com].
Re: (Score:3)
apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them.
You think? The DMCA does try to ban circumvention of security measures that are used to protect copyright, but I don't think that's the case here. The DMCA doesn't ban general breaking of security.
Re: (Score:2)
apple can say that by hacking the system people can get apps / moves / music / etc for free from the app store or use this to by pass the DRM and get the files out with them being DRM locked.
Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them (Score:5, Informative)
Cute, but no. Sayeth the DMCA:
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Whoops, meant to reply to the grandparent post. Though I guess it works here too.
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA does try to ban circumvention of security measures that are used to protect copyright, but I don't think that's the case here.
The DRM effectively prevents access to the firmware binary code.... note that in no case can a normal user get access to the firmware code, let alone see it and patch it; without circumventing effective controls.
Modifying the code in memory is also an exercise of the copyright owner's exclusive right to prepare derivative works.
Re: (Score:2)
The DRM effectively prevents access to the firmware binary code
Not the code that needs to be bypassed.
Modifying the code in memory is also an exercise of the copyright owner's exclusive right to prepare derivative works.
Assuming they have to modify it, which isn't necessarily the case.
Re: apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them (Score:2)
The DMCA doesn't ban general breaking of security.
You might be confusing facts with feelings..
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA doesn't ban general breaking of security.
You might be confusing facts with feelings..
Nope. I can point you to the relevant text if you like.
Re: (Score:2)
If you argue it's somehow violating Apple's copyright, you're essentially saying Apple holds th
Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them (Score:5, Informative)
Cute, but no. Sayeth the DMCA:
Re:apple can pull some DCMA BS and sue them (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if Cellebrite signs a NDA...
Thereby ... (Score:3)
Stimulating the global economy. Win-win!
Re: (Score:3)
I can never find that thing...
Wait, Stimulating What?
Re: (Score:2)
The little man in the canoe...
Re: (Score:2)
though your comment may shed some light on those hip waders under the bed...
Israel (Score:2, Interesting)
How is it that tiny little war torn Israel always seems to have the latest in technology that we can't seem to get here in America?
Re:Israel (Score:4, Funny)
Because to live there you can't be a fucking pussy.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it that tiny little war torn Israel always seems to have the latest in technology that we can't seem to get here in America?
Heh. Basically you just asked why you're ignorant.
Re:Israel (Score:5, Insightful)
No, actually they don't. You don't see commercial airliners (or military planes for that matter), ships, cars (including EVs), appliances ("durable goods"), semiconductors, mobile phones, or really almost any kind of manufacturing in Israel, except a couple of firearms makers maybe. They do do a lot with IP however; several semiconductor companies have design centers there.
It's true, Israel does have some impressive and unique technologies developed there, compared to its size and its state of security. A lot of their technology is military-oriented, for obvious reasons. They've done an impressive job of building a 1st-world nation (economically speaking) in a small place which used to be nothing special less than a century ago. But "the latest in technology"? No, sorry. They are not self-sufficient in any sense. They can't even make many of the weapons systems that defend them; they buy them from the US (e.g. fighter jets).
Re:Israel (Score:5, Informative)
You don't see commercial airliners (or military planes for that matter), ships, cars (including EVs), appliances ("durable goods"), semiconductors, mobile phones, or really almost any kind of manufacturing in Israel
That's factually not true. TowerJazz (a top-ten pure-play manufacturer) has two modern fabs in Israel and the almighty #1 (intel) has two more in that country.
Re:Israel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
FBI may be required to share hack with Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]
Re:FBI may be required to share hack with Apple (Score:5, Funny)
Hello Apple, as required by law, we inform you that we have discovered a security leak in your product. Full disclosure follows.
In order to reproduce the problem:
1. call Cellebrite
2. pay $15,000.-
3. Handover phone to Cellebrite
4. receive USB stick with all data.
regards, the FBI
Re: (Score:2)
Hello Apple, as required by law, we inform you that we have discovered a security leak in your product. Full disclosure follows.
In order to reproduce the problem:
1. call Cellebrite
2. pay $15,000.-
3. Handover phone to Cellebrite
4. receive USB stick with some data. Full data goes to Mossad
regards, the FBI
FTFY
For $15,000 they may not be told how it's done (Score:2)
If they're only paying $15,000, they may only be paying to have this phone hacked, without being told the key details of how it's done. They don't have to share information that they don't have.
For investigation. Pay more for expert witness lat (Score:2)
They don't yet know whether there is anything they can use even in the investigation, much less in court. If they want to use it in court, they'll have to pay the company to send an expert witness and testify about it. There's a lot more to pay if and when they decide to use it in court.
Re:FBI may be required to share hack with Apple (Score:5, Informative)
The legend is that they're copying off the NAND area [arstechnica.com]. Basically, you can then brute force the phone as often as you want.
You have 9 bad attempts. Then before you try the tenth, you copy the NAND back from before, in effect you reset the counter to 0. And you keep banging away.
This won't work with newer phones with a Secure Element.
So, there's no hack to share. Apple has already designed around this particular exploit.
Re: (Score:3)
That reminded me of a similar hack [archive.org] I read about a couple of years ago (and holy shit was it hard to find this again). It's about going around the 5 attempt limit per power cycle that exists in Opal compliant ATA password implementations.
Protecting sources and methods (Score:2)
The irony is sweet with this one: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]
Doubtful. They are protecting sources and methods by refusing to disclose to Apple.
Only $15,278.02? (Score:3)
There must not be too much secret sauce involved if they're going to do it that cheaply.
While that listing shows that they have bought SOMETHING from Cellbrite, I think I'd like to see a little more evidence before I'm convinced that this shows they hired Cellbrite to hack the San Bernardino iPhone. https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/... [fpds.gov] shows that the Secret Service bought $781k worth of something from them on the 10th of March.
A single FPDS entry doesn't really mean anything.
Re:Only $15,278.02? (Score:5, Informative)
Devices like this have been around for a bit and is one possibility: http://blog.mdsec.co.uk/2015/0... [mdsec.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Devices like this have been around for a bit and is one possibility: http://blog.mdsec.co.uk/2015/0... [mdsec.co.uk]
I believe the weakness that made that device possible was fixed in iOS 9, so it wouldn't be useful.
Then there is an easy solution ? (Score:2)
$15,000 (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, they should of asked for more. They would of had to pay 10 times, at least, that in any sort of legal battle.
Re: (Score:3)
A reusable capability would cost more. Cracking one phone without revealing the methods for $15k would be marketing.
Re:$15,000 (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, they should of asked for more. They would of had to pay 10 times, at least, that in any sort of legal battle.
Cellebrite will likely reap 100 times that much in new business from the publicity this generates. It's not always about making a quick buck, but about making millions of bucks over the longer term.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes when I see certain errors like that (where it's made into words that sound much like how it's pronounced as you pointed out), I kinda wonder if the writer isn't using some speech-to-text software...
Chain of custody? (Score:2, Interesting)
How do you maintain chain of custody of the evidence if you hand it over to a company that's not governed by our laws?
If the Israeli company recovers data that gives them leads to other suspected terrorists, does the FBI have legal authority to pursue those leads when the information was "extracted" by a foreign company and it may or may not be fabricated? The only proof that they have that the information was really on the phone is because this company said so.
Re:Chain of custody? (Score:5, Insightful)
Chain of custody does not matter in regards to TERRORISM.... and if you are against that then you hate america.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? They'd fly these guys into the US and make them do the work here.
I would doubt these guys get to do anything that isn't overseen by 20 FBI agents at all times.
It wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't have a diplomat from the Israeli embassy as some kind of observer as well.
Re:Chain of custody? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you maintain chain of custody of the evidence if you hand it over to a company that's not governed by our laws?
If the Israeli company recovers data that gives them leads to other suspected terrorists, does the FBI have legal authority to pursue those leads when the information was "extracted" by a foreign company and it may or may not be fabricated? The only proof that they have that the information was really on the phone is because this company said so.
There is no need for maintaining a chain of custody unless it will be used as evidence. Since anything from this phone would most likely be used to identify potential suspects or persons of interest what they get is no different than any other tip.
Re:Chain of custody? (Score:5, Informative)
How do you maintain chain of custody of the evidence if you hand it over to a company that's not governed by our laws?
That's not a problem, for at least two reasons.
First, chain of custody doesn't matter unless you want to use the information recovered as evidence in a trial. If you just use it to generate leads which you then use to find other suspects and evidence, then it's irrelevant if chain of custody was maintained.
Second, chain of custody is easy to maintain. Location and nationality don't affect chain of custody. What matters is that you have a documented chain and can prove that custody was maintained and access was controlled at each step. Worst case is that employees of the Israeli company may have to fly to the US and testify in court to substantiate the chain of custody, and to explain how they extracted the information. I'm sure the company would be happy to do that if the FBI paid them to (which would be an additional fee).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the company would be happy to do that if the FBI paid them to (which would be an additional fee).
Reminds me of an oldie but a goody from Red vs. Blue [youtube.com]...
Starts at 5:10
Re: (Score:2)
According to the court documents, the entire purpose of cracking this phone is to determine if charges need to be brought against other people. In other words the intent IS to use this in a criminal trial if such cooperation is found on the phone.
The FBI and half the world has been arguing both sides of this. The FBI says in court documents they absolutely need this to find out if there are other conspirators. In public they talk about needing the ability to combat terrorism. Both arguments are lies, this i
Re: (Score:2)
According to the court documents, the entire purpose of cracking this phone is to determine if charges need to be brought against other people. In other words the intent IS to use this in a criminal trial if such cooperation is found on the phone.
Your second sentence doesn't follow from your first. Yes, they're (allegedly) looking for conspirators. But information on the phone could identify conspirators without providing evidence against them that can be used to convict them. For example, it could just contain their e-mail addresses or phone numbers. That would be useless in court, but useful to investigators who would then look into the identified individuals and seek to gather evidence. With or without a tight chain of custody, information on the
Re: (Score:2)
The created master key could then be understood by all in a public court setting any tech experts could track back any methods to their origins and go over all findings.
Thats why the very public gov conscripted master key was attempted. The public chain of custody idea was push
Re: (Score:2)
But would the Cellebrite methods be subject to Discovery by the defendant's attorneys?
Both the chain-of-evidence issue (establishing and maintaining the environment) and the discovery issue were raised by Apple in its opposition, pointing out that a 'cracking facility' had substantial costs associated with it.
Re: (Score:2)
if they get a full trail. Maybe not in a tribunal trail.
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect the San Bernardino case to be a 'full trial' investigation, so any subsequent prosecutions from evidence obtained from this phone would be subject to criminal law procedures.
Re: (Score:2)
First they prove they can do it by giving them several phones with the same kind of firmware, iOS version, encryption, etc, set up and locked by the FBI with known data with the FBI watching and being informed in detail what is going one each step of the way. Assuming they are successful, they then fly out the team to a controled area, have all their equipment and software inspected. You then put out 5 phones of which one is the real one, and 4 others have fake but known data. As long as the 4 fake phones have the data you are expecting, it is very likely the data from the real one is correct (not altered.)
Of course, if it is a software solution of some sort that is relatively easy to run, the FBI could just buy it and run the tests themselves...
So this hacking team is so elite they can break into a phone that no one else can, but they somehow are fooled by some fake data?
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that we don't know what is on the 'real' iPhone - that's why they have recruited this team of experts. The people doing the work don't know what's on the iPhone either, so they will not know whether or not the iPhone they are working on at any given time is the real one or a decoy.
Only $15,000???? (Score:5, Insightful)
All that bullshit because the FBI wanted to save $15 thousand dollars?
Someone should be fired for such a dramatically bad decision as fighting it out in the court of public opinion, let alone federal court.
Re:Only $15,000???? (Score:5, Insightful)
All that bullshit because the FBI wanted to save $15 thousand dollars?
On the other hand, $15,000 is pretty damn cheap for a global marketing campaign. When Cellebrite can't crack the iPhone, the bullshit will get cranked up to fever pitch.
Re: (Score:2)
All that bullshit because the FBI wanted to save $15 thousand dollars?
Someone should be fired for such a dramatically bad decision as fighting it out in the court of public opinion, let alone federal court.
The more likely explanation - for both this and several other related news items - is that the FBI isn't particularly competent.
Re:Only $15,000???? (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
the FBI wanted to save 15,000 x A_LOT_OF_PHONES. Also, if the exploit is the NAND copy exploit as thought, newer phones can't be hacked this way, 15,000 or no.
They wanted to set a precedent. There's ton of iPhones out there waiting to be cracked. Remember these are the guys that run Stingrays without telling you.
As far as the Public Opinion goes, they just guessed wrong. Here's a phone, probably with nothing useful on it. But TERRORISM!!! MUSLIMS!!!! We still have some aspects of the P.AT.R.I.O.T. A.C.T (i write it that way because the back-ronym was silly) around because we were scared then. They thought that Apple would fold, and the public would all support the hack. They guessed wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
They thought that Apple would fold, and the public would all support the hack. They guessed wrong.
Majority of public != Majority of Slashdotters
They guessed wrong on Apple folding, but every poll I read about had a clear majority of the US public favoring the hack being done. Do many of you here even have any kind of relationship with people who aren't in IT? I mean I know we joke about guys living in their mom's basement and playing video games all day, but time and time again folks here assume incorrectly that the vast majority if the American public supports their personal stances on various i
Re: (Score:2)
There may be one small piece of info that's actually useful. They might have been walking around with the work phone and they might have left a trail of breadcrumbs in the phone, something not uploaded to iCloud servers.
But apple, based on privacy complains before, started wiping this. So it only goes back X days. So, you need to balance. Is position data for X days, where you hope they had their work phone on them when they talked to people with terrorist leanings, worth the damage to the privacy of ev
Re:Only $15,000???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Outsourced espionage of citizens, treason? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sounds illegal in both national and international levels, but I am still waiting for the encryption ban after this.
Imagine every LEO calling a mumble "Encryption" or "Code". Everything not understood must be encrypted. Remember the gang signs lockup for waving? Any files on your phone must be plain, and in all languages or it must be hidden messages. New tools for racists or classist members of LE or Government.
Win WIn (Score:2)
As embarrassing as O.J. Simpson (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you and I and 99.99% of everyone else here has NO IDEA what the truth is.
it could be that the fbi already has the data, but they are trying for court precidents. could be that the nsa already has the data. could be that apple has a friendly relationship (at the most secret level) with feds and yet keeps a two-face story going.
not one single person here (who would be dumb enough to post) has any clue at all.
we are wasting our time even talking about such things.
and, would I buy a 'secure' iphone, now? I
Illegal! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not when the relevant law (DMCA in this case) explicitly says it does not apply to law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The law doesn't mean just what you want it to mean, it means what it actually says.
Let them (Score:2)
And then let Apple pay them $20,000 to show them how they did it, so Apple can plug that vulnerability too.
That being said, I'm less worried about there being a way to hack a device if the hack requires physical possession.
It's remote carte blanche access I that concerns me the most.
Why are you putting words [in brackets]? (Score:2)
Earlier this week, the FBI asked the court for a continuance so it could do some research into a proposed method of cracking the [iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino, California shooters].
Why are you putting that in brackets?
Usually brackets like this indicate an alteration to a quote for clarity or taste, such as 'The defendant stated that he had "never seen the stupid [female dog]"'
If you're not linking to something from which this can be seen to be a quote, why are you putting the brackets in? It's not helpful.
Why don't they just go with the obvious answer? (Score:2)
Pick up the phone and call Geohot!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] :P
But wait... (Score:2)
Going to state this, yet again (Score:2)
This is a RUMOR that I do not have concrete information on.
However,...
I've read at least twice, that the perps deliberately physically destroyed their personal phones. The phone in question is a business phone. The likelyhood of anything being on this phone is very very slim. Simply by the fact they had the sense to kill the other phone, it implies this one is super likely to be empty.
May not be the actual case and could be untrue, but if it is, all this is likely to be for nothing.
Torrent in 1003, 1002, 1001... (Score:3)
Cellebrite.iPhorensics.Suite.Government.and.Law.Enforcement.Edition.x64.v1.02.incl.Keygen.-.CoRE
Now every kiddie can haXX0r da iPhonez
Re: (Score:2)
$15k is for software license renewal (Score:2)
I'm not an expert, I just clicked the link that read "View" to see the details.
$15k sounds about right for software licensing to me, how exactly do you get them hacking the iPhone in question from that?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a solution to that - log in already...
Re: (Score:2)
which FBI would lose
It is nice to see a lawyer weigh in. So, exactly how would the FBI lose? They have permission from the owner of the phone, and are asking for a one time exploit that wouldn't be able to be reused as it would 1. be signed with the Apple key, and 2. would have the device ID in it.
So, exactly how would this be an amendment court case?
Re: (Score:2)
They could always have hired the company to "accidentally" destroy the phone's data, proving that encryption is evil and the only solution is to give the government every power it asks for.
Re: (Score:2)
When you are the owner of the phone, it is legal for you to do whatever you like to it.
Re: (Score:2)