Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Swordmaker

I guess we disagree then. To me it is no different than getting a court order to open a safe, safe deposit box, open a mailbox.....

The difference for me is DOING it for the FBI and giving them the tools and software so they can do it any time they want. I don’t support giving the FBI the tools to use any time they want.

A last comment on your iOS 8/9 and hackers. If Apple has said there isn’t a way, and there IS, how safe does that make you feel about their claim? Is that what you call ‘security?’


79 posted on 02/18/2016 2:01:15 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]


To: Gaffer
To me it is no different than getting a court order to open a safe, safe deposit box, open a mailbox.....

If a court orders a safe to be opened the order is made to the owner based on external evidence that there is evidence of a crime stored in the safe. If the owner doesn't comply the cops can go to a judge and get a court order based on the external evidence. In no case is the maker of the safe under any legal obligation to crack open the safe. If the safe's owner is under criminal suspicion but dies in a shoot out with police that changes nothing. The maker of the safe has exactly the same legal status, they cannot be forced to do anything.

90 posted on 02/18/2016 3:16:06 AM PST by palmer (Net "neutrality" = Obama turning the internet over to foreign enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: Gaffer
To me it is no different than getting a court order to open a safe, safe deposit box, open a mailbox.....

It would be more like ordering the Acme Safe Company to develop a method (currently non-existent) to crack open an Acme safe that the federal government believed contained evidence needed in an investigation.

97 posted on 02/18/2016 3:44:41 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: Gaffer
A last comment on your iOS 8/9 and hackers. If Apple has said there isn't a way, and there IS, how safe does that make you feel about their claim? Is that what you call 'security?'

The question here is that the iPhone 5C doesn't have the protections the iPhone 5S, 6, 6plus, 6S, and 6S plus have built into their processors. Those devices are far more secure than the iPhone in question. However, it should not matter which iPhone an Apple customer owns under the equal protection of the law. Apple has not been handed a Search Warrant for this iPhone because there is NO pending criminal case. That died with the perpetrators of the San Bernardino terrorist attack. There is no one left to prosecute.

This is an investigation, a fishing expedition. Apple has been ordered by a Federal Magistrate to create the means to unlock an iOS device which has been designed to be secure from the get-go to prevent unlocking. Doing so will compromise Apple's entire ecosystem of almost 800 million iOS users who use over one BILLION iOS devices around the world who rely on the security of those devices to protect their privacy, the passwords, and their credit card information. That unbreakable security is one of the primary differentiators that makes Apple's products superior.

If Apple creates a tool that unlocks an iPhone that even hints that it can be broken, if that's possible, or if one that is created winds up getting out into the wild, it would be a disaster for all of those 800 million users, and for Apple's ecosystem. Every tool that opens the other mobile operating systems HAS been allowed to get into the wild in exactly that way, despite promises they would never be allowed beyond law enforcement. All it takes mere existence and the payment of a bribe.

Currently, on iPhones newer than the iPhone 5C, the protections are built into the hardware of the A7 and later processors which have the Secure Enclave co-processor built onto the SoC which handles the Secure Boot System which assures that the iOS device is properly validated with proper credentials. It uses a hard-coded UUID which is burnt into the silicon at manufacture that no-one knows and cannot be read from outside the Secure Enclave processor to create the encryption which will be entangled with the user's input passcode, as well as randomized data from GPS, barometric pressure, etc., to create a truly unique KEY for the 256 bit AES encryption of the data.

Also hard coded at manufacture on Secure Enclave is an variable algorithm which creates a one-way HASH of the user's input passcode which will then be stored in the Secure Enclave. The encryption KEY will also be converted to a one-way HASH and stored in the Secure Enclave. Every time the user logs into his or her iOS device, the passcode is re-converted to the HASH and compared to the one stored in the Secure Enclave. If they match, the iOS device is unlocked. If they do not, the Secure Boot allows four chances without a delay, then five more with extended delays of from one minute up to fifteen minutes between tries. The tenth try the wait is one hour after the ninth. IF it fails, the Secure Boot erases all data on the device and permanently locks the device until the owner unlocks it using his AppleID and then restores the data from an iTunes backup.

THAT is security, but THAT is what the judge has ordered Apple to disable for all iPhones so they can open one. . . or is it the only reason?

153 posted on 02/18/2016 11:01:13 AM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson