FBI Director Suggests iPhone Hacking Method May Remain Secret (reuters.com) 110
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: FBI Director James Comey said on Tuesday that his agency was still assessing whether a vulnerability used to unlock an iPhone linked to one of the San Bernardino killers would go through a government review to determine if it should be disclosed to Apple or the public. "We are in the midst of trying to sort that out," Comey said. "The threshold (for disclosure) is, are we aware of the vulnerability, or did we just buy a tool and don't have sufficient knowledge of the vulnerability to implicate the process?" The White House has a procedure for reviewing technology security flaws and deciding which ones should be made public. Although officials say the process leans toward disclosure, it is not set up to handle or reveal flaws that are discovered and owned by private companies, sources have told Reuters, raising questions about the effectiveness of the so-called Vulnerabilities Equities Process.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been said that this was never really about the data on the phone, but an opportunity to establish a "legal" government backdoor into millions of devices. The NSA can probably crack it, but will hardly say so. This is all smoke and mirrors.
Re: (Score:2)
1) The sheer amount of misinformation swirling around the media
2) The amount of people weighing in with opinions with no verific
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I don't find any of those astonishing.
Re: This has reached the point of ridiculousness (Score:2)
Know how I can tell you've never read the iOS Security Paper and have no actual knowledge of how iOS encryption works?
Because you think a 4 digit numeric passcode is the only thing that makes up the securely generated AES 256 encryption key. It's not. At all.
Here's the iOS Security Paper [apple.com]. The relevant section begins on page 10. Read it. Understand it. Then review your original comment and learn how many fundamental mistakes you made.
Re: (Score:1)
I myself have actually read quite a lot about iOS security and still agree with tom229, he's fundamentally right that a 4-digit PIN or short password was not sufficient to protect the model(s) affected. The underlying encryption algorithm is irrelevant in this discussion. The paper you linked is also not relevant to this particular case as it's about iOS9 and later. You assume what he means or meant is the current models which is obviously not the case.
The most significant weakness in a 4-digit PIN is that
Re: (Score:2)
The most significant weakness in a 4-digit PIN is that (in this case) merely by guessing you have a 0.1% chance to get it right.
Wait, what? 4-digit PIN = 0-9,999 = 1 in 10K chance = 0.01% chance, correct? I mean, that's an order of magnitude...
Re: (Score:2)
In just 10 guesses, you have a 22% "real world" chance of getting it correct. That goes up even further if you know even a hint of biographical data about your target (ie, their birthday).
Re: This has reached the point of ridiculousness (Score:2)
Sigh. The encryption methods haven't changed in years. iOS devices have had these features for multiple generations. You can read the iOS Security Paper from February 2014 [apple.com] to confirm this. It starts on page 8.
Re: This has reached the point of ridiculousness (Score:2)
The core functionality of the encryption methods haven't changed much, as you can clearly see if you compare the iOS 7, Feb 2014 security paper to the 2015 iOS 9 security paper.
There are many excellent guides on how iOS encryption works [darthnull.org]. There's no need for you to remain this ignorant about how iOS encryption works.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't call a 50% increase in PIN lenght, from 4 to 6, and Security Enclave a "core feature"? You really are more dense than one would assume at first glance.
You could use a longer passcode or even a password since iOS 5 (and supposedly before if you used an company Exchange account). That doesn't depend on iOS 9.
Re: (Score:2)
The paper you linked is also not relevant to this particular case as it's about iOS9 and later.
Here's the predecessor from Feb 2014: https://www.apple.com/euro/iphone/business/b/generic/docs/iOS_Security_Feb14.pdf [apple.com] - IOW up to iOS 7. Not much difference, because the encryption is done in hardware.
Ohh, and Apple has been telling people to use more than 4-digit passcodes for years. The fact that the shooter only used 4 digit just proves he had nothing to hide on that stupid phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Appl
Re: This has reached the point of ridiculousness (Score:2)
Sigh. Could you at least have tried to read the iOS Security Paper before posting?
If you had, you would have realized the decryption key is derived from the passcode, the unique UID burned into the SoC, and the GID unique to each model family.
In order to brute force the securely generated AES 256 decryption key via the passcode, you need the other pieces of information. Had you read the paper, you would have learned how difficult that task is.
Re: (Score:2)
All the UID does is force you to run your brute force on that particular hardware (because you can never know it). Therefore if you use custom firmware to remove the artificial software security checks, you are only limited by the hardware encryption circuitry. I sai
Re: (Score:1)
"There is no phone" The entire story is a fairy tale.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone actually believe anything they say on the matter anymore? I'm still not convinced they even have the contents of the phone at the point.
At this point, I'm not even sure there is a phone. I think they're just using stock photos. The Fucking Big Idiots are often said to have a hard time finding their own asshole with both hands and a map, I doubt they even know what an iPhone is.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Besides I'm sure China, Russia, North Korea and Co. already know how it was done. Just ask them!
Re: (Score:2)
As do several organized crime outfits in Eastern Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
The best guess I've heard is that the FBI hired an Israeli security firm.The Israelis have strong reasons to want to hack personal phones, which are used both for terrorist communications and for control devices for emote detonators.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because its a policy / precedent.
How they behave with this security vulnerability today is how they will behave with the next one tomorrow.
It's literally a ... "first they came for the X, but I was not a X, so I did nothing" situation.
And theirs is the wrong action, law enforcement should disclose vulnerabilities to the manufacturer and owners so that they can be corrected in future, not so that they can exploit them themselves.
Its fundamentally the exact opposite of what they should be doing, FBI & NSA both, and the government in general. Their function is to 'serve and protect' the public. I am in no way being served by there being known security vulnerabilities in the products I use. If the government knows them, then so do other actors. I don't trust those other actors, and based on government behavior I don't trust them either.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
As reading the iOS Security Paper has proven too difficult for you, here's an excellent iOS Encryption Primer [darthnull.org] that discusses how iOS encryption actually works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
You haven't "wrecked" anything. All you've done is proven your unwillingness to learn.
At least you're finally acknowledging it's no where near as simple as brute forcing a 4 digit PIN, as your previous posts claimed repeatedly.
Now you've realized/learned there are other major, significant hurdles to doing a brute force attack, such as finding security holes in other parts of iOS that first allow you to run arbitrary code on the iOS device when you have physical access or getting access to the UID by physica
Re: (Score:2)
if you would lik
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
iOS has an anti-replay counter to prevent reimaging like the type you suggest to assist with a brute force attack. Furthermore, the "secure enclave" is a marketing term Apple uses to group disparate security features under one umbrella. Most of the security features under the "secure enclave" umbrella still existed on previous iOS devices.
Finally, the Apple A6 SoC does have its own rewritable NVRAM that can be used to store the number of incorrect attempts without needing to store it on the NAND.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
I bet you voted for Obama twice. I can tell, because he never enters the discussion. It's his fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
He's supposedly in charge. He could end all this with a phone call. He is the one that bears the blame.
Re: (Score:2)
How they behave with this security vulnerability today is how they will behave with the next one tomorrow.
Requirement should be to prosecute someone in court, they have to disseminate all technical details to the public of how they gained access to the phone --- no black boxing, closed, secret, or proprietary technologies or programs allowed.
No full disclosure of the design specs and source code of any exploit software or exploit devices, then no evidence from hacked phone can be used in court.
Re: (Score:2)
So, since there wasn't any useful data on the phone and they aren't actually prosecuting anyone, they should be allowed to keep it a secret?
Re: (Score:2)
I think most investigations stay secret. The police are not required to disclose the details of specific investigations, unless someone winds up in court charged with a crime.
Why would you expect them to disclose the secret with no net benefit to the public in doing so, After the gov't Paid for this vulnerability, and the value derived from this payment will be completely destroyed if Apple learns the details of it?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is probably what's going to happen. I mean there's only so many times you can do it before some lawyer wises up and will try for "tampered evidence" defense.
At which point the phone will come up and the FBI will have to describe how they cracked the phone. If it ends up with a third party they'd get at those details to make sure there was no chain of custody issues and that the methods used were kosher and won't tamper with evidence.
At which point
Re: (Score:2)
Well that isn't a problem in this case, they won't be taking a deceased perpetrator to court anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see law enforcement going around warning people about bump keys.
Everybody knows they exist, and lots of information exists and info is readily available about them. You can buy locks if you like that defend against them.
If law enforcement found a bump key, and then kept it for themselves, and then used it on suspects, and refused to show it to anybody... well that hasn't actually happened...
Anyone who think law enforcement = security guards is literally retarded.
What precisely do you think they are? Crime prevention, and crime investigation are their two main functions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only because they have more specialized picks and skills needed to deal with them. Circular locks aren't inherently harder to pick, merely less common that a locksmith or someone nefearious will have the tools to do so, or have practiced on them since they aren't commonly used.
Security seems more to be about "Hey, it's easier to go over there and break into THAT, don't bother with THIS."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably one of the best are those circular locks like on most vending machines.
Oh yeah, that looks amazingly secure [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are willing to do that, you would probably just take a crowbar to the vending machine. That lock wasn't picked, it was destroyed. And it wasn't particularly discreet, quick, or quiet.
Really the only use for it would be as in the video where you wanted to open the vending machine without the keys while doing minimal damage to it... which would only be a concern if you owned it.
Re: (Score:2)
If law enforcement found a bump key, and then kept it for themselves, and then used it on suspects, and refused to show it to anybody... well that hasn't actually happened...
Close enough... you can open any typical lock with a pick gun, the cops have them, and it's illegal for you to have them but anyone can totally get one. What's the difference?
What they are doing... (Score:1)
Government: "This is not the iPhone hack you are looking for... move along."
Citizen: "You are right, I am going to go home and rethink my life."
Too obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Soo, they didn't actually crack the thing at all.
Let's see: no actionable data from the phone (imagine the headline: "FBI's cracked iPhone thwarts terror plot"), they haven't shared this skeleton key with Law Enforcement, and now they might just never divulge the secret at all??
"Ignore the man behind the curtain."
Re: (Score:1)
Or, the Gov did crack it and discovered it contained noting of value, and realized they spent all that legal effort to gain "legal" access to a worthless device.
Re: Too obvious (Score:2)
Then why wouldn't they crack some phones for the cops?
At least one of those thousands and thousands of phones in LEO possession would have solid leads, and generate some good PR for the FBI at least.
Re: (Score:1)
The third party that allegedly cracked the phone may have not shared the means with the FBI, only performed the service and handed the phone back. If I had that kind of knowledge, I'd be changing uncle Sam through the nose every time I was asked to break into another phone.
Commit crime with iphone in hand > Allow phone to be found as evidence > Sell services to unlock said device > PROFIT! ... nah... couldn't be THAT easy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go one step shadier ... just buy up a dozen or so unlocked iphones. Write a small script to generate random contact info, browsing history, etc, so the phones look "used."
Offer to unlock any phone for the FBI, on the condition that I'm given the phone and not observed while I work. Swap it out for the randomly populated device, and return it (maybe spend a bit of time strategically scuffing or cracking screens to match the physical appearance of the original) That'll be $150,000 please.
Re: (Score:2)
Chain of custody probably.
IANAL but I don't thing. "Then we sent it to *some people* at the FBI where they did *some stuff* to it and sent it back." will fly in most criminal cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Or Apple actually gave them access months ago, and this is all just a big cover story to keep the cozy Apple/FBI relationship going.
Re: (Score:2)
They already knew it contained nothing of value, they wanted to set precedent.
Gubmint: We's keepin' dis SEKRIT! (Score:2)
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah. Like that's ACTUALLY going to happen.
They can't keep anything ELSE secret, but this'll remain an undisclosed security hole until the end of time...
Hey! Do they have any bridges to sell us too?
Bargain priced ocean-front property in Nevada?
Are they all secretly Nigerian princes looking to enrich us if we can just help them a little?
Call me when these assclowns descend back to reality.
Re: (Score:1)
They can't keep anything ELSE secret
How do we know? I guess that's the thing about secrets, if you know about them then they're not secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
"Implicate"? (Score:4)
I've heard of extrapolating a process, or even inferring something unknown from known facts (sure, that could be a process). Heck, even "explicate" [google.com] would work...but "implicate the process"?
Implicate it in what? Manslaughter? Conspiracy to defraud?
Tinfoil hat looking more fashionable (Score:3)
They didn't use a third party to hack the phone. They had the ability the entire time and invented this narrative when they realized that they weren't going to get the court precedent that they wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT
The actual court order makes several attempts to insist the process only affects this one device, even explicitly suggesting Apple build a sanitized lab and give the FBI remote access, with monetary compensation.
So undoubtedly it's you that has bought the narrative. It's you, and many others that have beli
The depth here is a little too shallow (Score:2)
When it comes to technology related issues, the FBI very likely is contacted for use of their forensics labs almost constantly. As telephones become more difficult for law enforcement to crack, the FBI will be contacted more often, establish a longer backlog and especially in the case of police departments with less funding, will h
The wording blows my mind. (Score:2)
They're debating over if they should debate over disclosing this. Yes, I get the reason why, but it still sounds moronic.
Re: The wording blows my mind. (Score:2)
No, it makes perfect sense. He admits the truth -- they are fucking clueless on the details of the hack. They don't even have enough information to fill out the form to start the disclosure review process.
They paid for either a service or an obfuscated, single purpose binary. For all Coomey knows it was leprechaun magic.
Re: (Score:2)
They paid for either a service or an obfuscated, single purpose binary. For all Coomey knows it was leprechaun magic.
I like to imagine that this third-party company received the iPhone from the FBI, wiped it clean, renamed it to "Sayed's iPhone", installed Angry Birds, then handed it back to the FBI, saying "here, it's unlocked now!" and collected their million-dollar fee.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't say they don't know the details of the hack, it says they're deciding if they know the details. If they do, then they'll release it, if they don't, then they won't. Granted this argument is kind of silly, but that's what it says.
IMO, if they were telling the truth about this, they would just give Apple what they know about the hack and let them deal with any missing information.
Congratulations, you're now the enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
So you've effectively put yourself at war with the American people in that statement, do you realize that?
You've weaponized an asset of an American company and are intentionally putting the American public at risk to further your own agenda.
You should be hung from the highest bridge with care.
Re: (Score:3)
You should be hung from the highest bridge with care.
whoa buddy! don't you think that's a bit extreme? seriously, i don't want to have to figure out which bridge is the highest. how about we just stick with the highest bridge in a 50 mile radius? ;)
Re: (Score:1)
All this angst! I remind you that 95% of the congress that keeps this little game running is about to be reelected in just over six months. FBI is just following orders, ours...
And yes, with today's infrastructure issues, you don't want any careless hangings [cbsistatic.com]
Owned?!?! (Score:2)
It's OWNED by Apple. It's their software, copyright and all. (Maybe even a few patents in there.)
Any flaw that's in it was created by Apple, even if unintentionally, and is still part of their software which they 'own'.
Just because some guy in a trenchcoat sold you a map to the back door of the theater along with a copy of the key to unlock it, doesn't mean he owns the friggin door!
Just a thought (Score:2)
My thought: Security cam shoulder surfing. What if the "crack" actually involved checking security footage from any banks, stores, etc. visited by the terrorist before the incident. One of them might've had a clear enough angle to see him punch in the code.
It's just dumb enough to actually work, but something the FBI might not want to admit out loud. Not only for fear of sounding stupid, but this would also back up Apple's stance that the phones themselves are secure... and the FBI doesn't want that.
James who? (Score:1)
Tinfoil hattery (Score:2)
The level of random ideas on the topic is indicative that there is actually something seriously wrong with the discourse on here. People are making way way to many random accusations that they appear 100% confident on. While
If you have nothing to hide (Score:1)
Go ahead. Release the information.
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
What? Isn't that what you keep telling us?