Posted on 03/05/2016 8:44:52 AM PST by Swordmaker
Viruses aren’t biological, they don’t just live dormant inside a phone. They have to be used, activated or deployed. Zdziarski says he thinks the District Attorney is trying to claim that the shooter was trying to compromise the local San Bernardino IT network with a virus of some kind, but the language used in the filing is just factually incorrect and likely misleading to the court. There is also seemingly no other evidence that would lead investigator’s to believe such a claim.
If a serious computer virus did exist on the device with the phone acting as a host of some kind, then the device would have to be jailbroken anyway. This is clearly not the case as otherwise the Apple/FBI iPhone unlock court fiasco would not be necessary.
The iPhone does not allow for PF_INET and SOCK_RAW, or other kinds of low level packets, to be used from within the app sandbox. Its unlikely that Fagan knows this, however, and so his dramatic statements are actually damaging the FBIs case, because the device would likely have to be jailbroken. Apples sandbox will simply not allow an application to abuse the network stack in such a way that would make a cyber pathogen feasible. The kind of dramatic network attack that the DA is trying to sell to Judge Pym would have to be big. Popular ports such as metasploit require a jailbroken device to work for this (and other) reasons, and any tool to inject something this serious would need the same.
If this filing is meant as a scaremongering tactic to sway court feeling towards the FBI argument, then it’s not a great one: any inspection by an expert reveals the blatant weaknesses in the argument. It could also be the honest opinion of someone who is simply not educated in technology, in which case it will also likely get disregarded once Apple’s lawyers get a chance to comment in court.
The Apple/FBI court fight begins on March 22nd, a day after Apple’s rumored media event where the company will unveil a new 4-inch iPhone, a 9.7 inch iPad Pro and an Apple Watch refresh. Tech companies including Google, Facebook, Snapchat, Microsoft and Dropbox have all submitted amicus briefs defending Apple’s position. Apple is keeping a complete list of filings that support Apple’s argument on its website.
“The iPhone does not allow for PF_INET and SOCK_RAW, or other kinds of low level packets, to be used from within the app sandbox.”
So a terrorist can only use code from the authorized sandbox?
""Companies that introduce dangerous products, and it can be argued that the iPhone with its current encryption is dangerous to victims, are required to fix them. Companies that create environmental damage are required to clean it up,"
. . . trying to make the bizarre connection that the encrypted iOS ecosystem of locked iPhones and iPads which law enforcement and other agencies such as his cannot get into at will, is the equivalent of a dangerous to the public, toxic environmental spill. That is really absurd. PING!
Pinging dayglored and Shadow Ace for the most absurd legal theory ever. . .
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
Idiot...
“Don’t try to understand ‘em, just ride n rope n brand ‘em...”
cyber pathogen lying-dormant.....
Need to work that into an E-mail sometime. :)
“That is really absurd.”
Beware the absurd becoming the standard.
In _Raich_, SCOTUS ruled the interstate commerce clause allowed the feds to prohibit state-legal intrastate activity which REDUCED demand for ILLEGAL interstate commerce.
I just can't picture them making it through the approval process to be included on the App Store. . . but if it did happen. . .
(warning, really bad sick humor follows)
It would have to be a new Apple App Store category: Terrorist and ISIS Apps.
I can see the new sandboxed iPhone and iPad apps now.
Of course, the authorized sandbox on the iPhone is called the Sahara. . .
On the other hand there IS an ISIS Android store. . .
The Iphone has a cyber pathogen but I killed it with a hammer.
You have to remember that Lawyers take classes in straining at gnats, getting camels through the eyes of needles, and they learn how to start discussing a herd of elephants and by the time they're finished the subject has been converted into a single mouse.
There are too many Liberal Attorneys sitting on benches reading invisible ink between the words and lines of very plainly written English words and sentences.
I've been running into a couple on FR who seem to be prime candidates for taking some of their places on those benches as word and sentence jugglers.
They can find entire pages of additional orders and clauses between the last word of a sentence and the period in the Court Order compelling Apple to open that iPhone. Things such as Apple gets to keep the iPhone forever and three days (that's an exaggeration of their claims), to Apple doesn't have to give the FBI the software, to Apple is permitted to destroy the software after opening the device, to one who claimed that Apple could destroy both the iPhone and the software afterward, to Apple can use any technique at all to open the phone they want without government approval. They will argue themselves blue in the face that the order includes what they see there, but will never produce the exact words they claim to have found.
They'll claim those words and orders are easy for any "smart person" to see or that they've already posted them and all anyone has to do is read what they've already posted, but they never rise to actually respond to a timely verbatim quote from the order itself.
Insert two aspirins into the charger and call me in the morning.
Does DA stand for Dumb Ass?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.