The current showdown between the federal government and Apple is very interesting, and turns on a technical question that is beyond my capacity to answer. Whether we should side with Apple or not depends upon the ramifications of what they have been asked to do. But all of us can know the principle that is at issue.
The controversy revolves around a locked phone that was in the possession of one of the San Bernardino terrorists. The Feds want the information on that phone, which they have every right to have, and Apple won’t unlock it for them. And why? Apple says that doing so would give the government access to all their phones and not just this one.
The Feds have more than probable cause to justify a warrant to search this phone, and if the unlocking were just unlocking one phone, then Apple should unlock it for them. But if unlocking it would give the Feds the capacity to reverse engineer what was done, such that they could then make their way into every phone in the world, then Apple should stick to their guns.
Suppose a deceased murderer left behind a locked apartment, and the landlord won’t give a key to the cops. This is unconscionable if the withheld key is to that apartment only. But if it is a skeleton key that opens the door of a hundred thousand apartments, the issue shifts.
So while the controversy staggers on, suppose that we don’t have the capacity to decide the technical question, and the whole thing comes down to “who do you trust?” Which way do we lean in the meantime? When it comes to my security, my information, who do I have reason to believe has lied to me more? Apple or the federal government? To ask the question is to answer it.
In the meantime, if what the government wants is simply the information on that phone, and it really is a matter of pressing national security, they should simply deputize an approved employee of Apple who will remove all the information from the phone and turn it over, with Apple keeping the phone itself. The government gets the info, and not the security codes.
You want us to believe that the government is a secure place for all our information? Is Lois Lerner still uncharged? Tell you what. Why don’t you come back later?
Great idea to deputize an Apple employee, maybe their CEO.
Not sure if this is pertinent to the issue. But I’m wondering how secure our phones really are. Backstory: our church is shopping around for playground equipment. It’s been hush hush so as to not get people all concerned with budget, etc. long story short- without any google searches, guess what started showing up in Facebook feeds? Ads for….playground equipment!
An informative end-user explanation is here: https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18/passcodes-that-can-defeat-fbi-ios-backdoor/ Here, from the article, is an extended excerpt explaining the mechanics of it: The most obvious way to try and crack into your iPhone, and what the FBI is trying to do in the San Bernardino case, is to simply run through every possible passcode until the correct one is discovered and the phone is unlocked. This is known as a “brute force” attack. For example, let’s say you set a six-digit passcode on your iPhone. There are 10 possibilities for each digit in a numbers-based passcode, and so there are 106, or… Read more »
It seems like it is deeper than that to me… The Federal government ought not be able to force people to work. Particularly to undermine the security of their own product.. Government ordering somebody “Write us a computer program to break into your phones” is outside of the realm of “free society” If the government wants a phone hacked, they ought to hire hackers to hack it – not force some company that has a vested interest in keeping the product secure to do something that undermines the security of it’s own product. Apple doesn’t have the keys… The federal… Read more »
This isn’t quite a “back-door”….. http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/19/cut-the-crap-apple-and-open-syed-farooks-iphone/ “First, it requires Apple to use its access to temporarily remove only the three barriers to using a brute force attack discussed above. It does not require any adjustment to the iPhone’s encryption. Second, the order requires Apple to explicitly restrict its software update so that it can only run on Farook’s iPhone and be both temporary and reversible. It does not require altering any other software or access to any other iPhones. Third, the order allows Apple to comply with the order at its own facility, if it so chooses. In other words,… Read more »
Could be wrong, but I think brute force only works on jailbroken phones. Farook’s wasn’t and can’t be jailbroken without the passcode because his model was a 6 and has the latest OS. The Feds are asking Apple if there is another way to unlock it and to change the OS in the future.
“Farook’s wasn’t and can’t be jailbroken without the passcode because his model was a 6 and has the latest OS.”
Was it the 6 or the 5S?
I was wrong. It was a 5C.
The problem is the FBI wants remote access to the phone. Othewise take the phone to apple connect it to a test server and temporarily remove the security measures to retreive the data on site.
The modern cell phone: “The greatest spy tool ever invented.”
Regarding the privacy issue of the instrument itself, I do not think that the deceased can have any expectation of privacy, so I do not think that a warrant is even needed. I completely adhere to “secure in our papers and effects”, but we no longer have a relationship to those rights upon death. Since it was a .gov phone, there is no constitutional conflict with government retrieving government information from an government instrument. I also concur with Pastor Wilson regarding the greater question of universal access, and appointing a type of “special master” retained by the manufacturer to obtain… Read more »
Apple isn’t concerned about the technology, but the precedent. It’s a hassle to write new software to enable brute-force encryption, but that’s trivial for Apple, and this won’t, in and of itself, endanger other Apple devices. Their concern is creating a precedent for a floodgate of future requests that may be much less justifiable: that destroys trust in their security measures.
I agree with Chris Walker that the issue is the hassle to the FBI. The FBI already has the means to reverse engineer the iOS machine code to alter it to make it safe and efficient to then brute force the lock using rapid passcode attempts. The problem is that reverse engineering machine code is a hassle. It would be trivial for Apple to produce a variant of iOS because they have the source code. If the FBI can’t manipulate Apple to do it for them, they will still do it themselves, or accept John McAfee’s offer to do it… Read more »
Not so. The iPhone would reject an FBI-changed version of iOS because it only accepts versions signed by Apple. That’s why the FBI needs Apple’s help – they have the crypto keys necessary to make a modified version of iOS which the iPhone will accept.
McAfee says he can find a flaw in this protection system; it’s possible that one exists and that he knows about it and no-one else does, but it seems unlikely to me. It’s more likely the NSA knows about it and no-one else does.
Code signing in Apple’s secure boot chain is only a deterrent. There are lots of workarounds and brute force methods if you have physical access to the device. Even without physical access, return-only programming is very successful against data execution prevention schemes (even stack canaries) and code signing. Apple implemented a completely independent “Secure Enclave” coprocessor to store biometrics and financial keys, separate from the main processor, because they are aware that the kernel can be compromised. Secure Enclave would have been superfluous if Apple believed their boot chain was fully hardened. Applications are supposed to require code signatures as… Read more »
The application signing stuff has a much bigger attack surface area; just because people break that using kernel exploits and so on doesn’t mean they can break into the OS image signing stuff, which is a relatively small piece of code executed very early in the boot process. The reason Apple did Secure Enclave and are moving in that direction is because they knew attacks exactly like the one the FBI are currently proposing – compelled creation and image signing attacks – are possible (even in the face of a fully-hardened boot chain – after all, the entire point of… Read more »
What are the odds that this is a ruse? Maybe NSA can already hack any iPhone, but this is a really good tactic for getting the bad guys to feel secure.
Does anyone else remember the Air Force threatening to sue the reporter who said he had gotten design info for the first stealth fighter? When the F-117 was finally revealed, it was nothing like what the USAF had made such a fuss about. It was all a ruse.
It’s not a ruse.
This is about the best explanation I have found and explains clearly why unlocking just one phone would be so difficult. https://medium.com/@gernot/why-tim-cook-is-so-furious-be24163bdfa#.4nrr2z5re
Apple doesn’t have the key to get into the phone, so they can’t give it to the feds even if they wanted to, which is great, I don’t trust apple any more then the feds. What the feds are looking for is a new version of the phones software to be delivered that allows them to get around the 10 failed passcode tries wipes the phones data. The fallacy of the Feds position is that there is somehow a way for apple to do this in a way that only the feds can exploit. Vast amounts of computing power is… Read more »
Eric Zimmerman is correct that the FBI is simply instructing Apple to provide a version of the OS that disables some features to allow the FBI to brute force the passcode. They aren’t asking Apple to unlock the phone directly. However, the FBI is only doing this as a convenience for themselves. They have the tools to reverse engineer Apple’s iOS machine code to find the instructions that implement the data wipe after 10 passcode attempts, and disable it. They can also find the instructions that implement the input delay after wrong passcodes are entered, and disable that too. In… Read more »
Here’s the latest:
“The FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on [the shooter’s] iPhone,” Cook added. “In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-escalates-battle-apple-san-bernardino-shooters-phone/story?id=37056775
Cook is still not quite telling the whole story. What Cook doesn’t mention is that the FBI could disable those security features by reverse engineering and creating their own modified iOS, it would just take them longer. Also, Cook doesn’t mention that the only reason the FBI is pursuing this modified iOS is because they intend to then brute force a relatively short passcode to unlock the device. If Cook was really interested in the principle of consumer privacy, he would make sure iOS supports and endorses the use of long passwords/passphrases for customers who need strong privacy. With a… Read more »
Tech question:
Is the biometric (right now fingerprint) but say something more sophisticated, such as ocular blood vessel patterns, capable of brute force breaking?
It completely depends on the implementation. For example, if the scanned fingerprint is internally encoded as a simple 16-bit value, then there aren’t too many combinations to feed into the decryption algorithm. But if the fingerprint is encoded as a 2048-bit value, then brute forcing becomes impractical. I would guess that consumer implementations are limited because they have to account for misalignment, dirt, etc. They probably look for just a few prominent features in a fingerprint. The advantage of a biometric is convenience of entering a very long key value reliably and efficiently. We all know how hard it is… Read more »
Thanks for the reply.
It’s possible I suppose to decompile the whole of IOS, at least the objective C parts (http://www.hopperapp.com). Decompiled code is unpleasant to work with and an OS is so large and complex, i’d hate to try even try. In fact it might even take longer to understand even for a large talented team, then apple’s IOS release cycles, setting the effort back each release. I wonder if it’s practical even for the FBI, or NSA.
And the iPhone won’t accept a modified version unless it’s signed with Apple’s key.
What earthly good would it do for the FBI to have the information on this phone? Our government is the enemy right now. If they were able to know everything about Muslim terrorists that existed in the world today, they would do absolutely nothing about it anyway. They have proved this over and over and over again. They certainly had the ability to stop that godless woman from entering the country on her shady pretenses and did nothing. When the fox is guarding the hen house, no one is safe.
One of the things that is missed in the public knowledge of failure is the real and continuing tension that exists in the system. That tension is one that permeates many organizations; at one end are those who are the zampolit, apparatchik, and nomenklatura. Their loyalty is to the party line with career promotion and self-aggrandizement as their polar north. The other end are the come-to-work every day, live for the weekend, hope for the pension class. They are honest laborers, and there interest is not much more than their job description. Then there are those who are the principled… Read more »
It’s worth noting that phone companies are required to keep a record of numbers called, and have been since at least 1977. One would figure that this would get the police started on getting a hold of people with whom the perps were interacting. I am skeptical of the notion that they did all of their interactions on totally secure channels. So really, we may be dealing with a question of whether the investigators are trying to get absolutely everything when a better use of effort might be to prosecute the easy cases. Say Lois Lerner, and see how her… Read more »
They already have those numbers and I presume Farook’s texts and emails. I believe the Feds want other stored info on the phone that hasn’t been sent out (notes, calendars, contacts?).
Some people say that the Feds could hack Farook’s phone and that this court case is about trying to get more power. Attach it to a horrible act of terrorism and you might be able to sway Apple, the court, and the court of public opinion.
In other words, heroic measures for this case, bupkus for Fast & Furious, the IRS, and Hilliary Clinton. Says something about priorities…..
They don’t need Apple to get Mrs. Clinton’s information. They can just ask the Chicoms or the Russians.
It’s my understanding that they do have the call data, obtained in the usual way. They just want more.
I don’t think the apartment/landlord analogy is a very good one. First, it presumes that everyone with a pocket computing device (excuse me, “smart phone” :)) is a renter instead of an owner. Second, it presumes that Apple actually has the keys to every phone that they sell. It is quite reasonable for a landlord to maintain either a set of keys or even a skeleton key to all of his units. After all, as a renter, you are a guest on his property. But smart phone users are (for the most part) not apartment renters, they are land owners.… Read more »
I’m with Apple here. I think the Feds have proven themselves unable to handle the amount of data they already have, and making it possible for them to potentially violate the privacy of anyone they want to is not the solution.
Also, if the Feds were only motivated by a desire to see what is on that phone, they’d simply hire a teenager or a disgruntled girlfriend and have their phone hacked in no time.
Haha, speaking of…did you see this?: http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mcafee-ill-decrypt-san-bernardino-phone-for-free-2016-2
I was wondering why they didn’t cut off the thumbs of the dead suspects.
Then I heard on the Rush show that it was the 5c without the thumbprint thingie. Too bad.
A Libertarian hacker who is running for President–seeking the Libertarian nomination, I suppose–said he and his hacker friends could unlock the phone in three weeks, for free, and only this phone. FWIW.
He’s not really a libertarian “hacker”, and he is also not just anybody. He’s John McAfee. As in McAfee Antivirus, although he hasn’t been involved in that business for some years now.
He is also a total loon, although I don’t doubt that he has at least some of the connections to talent that he claims.
They have a warrant to try to unlock it. They do not have a legal guarantee to an unlocked phone.
This is an interesting sticking point, and one that some federal lawmakers would like to remedy, once and for all. They want laws that guarantee that all data storage and communication can be unlocked once they get a warrant. They will do this by requiring restrictions on the strength of encryption (I believe they already impose such restrictions on digital devices sold abroad). They may even require that actual encryption keys themselves be surrendered, on demand. I believe all this is equivalent to dispensing with the 5th Amendment regarding self-incrimination.
Reagan’s no saint, but he had the right idea: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’.” This really is a broader issue that speaks to the liberal/conservative worldview. As Sanders repeatedly mentioned the words corporation/wall street/big banks in an almost sort of hypnic jerk fashion in the last debate, it occurred to me that Sanders in fact loves those things as long as it’s in the form of government. There is no bigger corporation or bank in the world than the U.S. government. As many have said before,… Read more »
I must admit I am suspicious of the news itself. Who broke the news? Why is this exchange between Apple and the FBI public? Who has a vested interest here in shaping or steering a public conversation on the subject?
ABC News is reporting that the password was changed while it was in the governments posession, after the muslim terrorist had been shot.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bernardino-shooters-apple-id-passcode-changed-government/story?id=37066070