The IP Box setup, via MDSec.
Posted on 04/08/2016 12:47:53 AM PDT by Swordmaker
The unlocking procedure used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to break into an iPhone 5c at the center of the San Bernardino case cannot be used on new devices, the bureau's director said on Wednesday.
Comey told a group of students and educators at Kenyon College in Ohio that his department had "purchased a tool" from a third party to unlock the iPhone in question, according to CNN Money. Though he stopped short of revealing the exact process, he did note that it would not work on more modern handsets.
"This doesn't work on 6S, doesn't work on a 5S, and so we have a tool that works on a narrow slice of phones," Comey said.
Discussing Apple's request that the bureau unveil its method, Comey was noncommittal but said he was worried about losing what little access the bureau does have.
"We tell Apple, then they're going to fix it, then we're back where we started from," he said. "We may end up there, we just haven't decided yet."
Since the FBI revealed its success late last month, most speculation regarding their method has centered around the so-called "IP Box" that first appeared last spring. That tool — which retails for less than $300 — latches onto a susceptible iPhone's power circuitry and enters PINs over USB.
When a wrong guess is detected, the tool aggressively cuts power to the iPhone's logic board before the guess is recorded, defeating the 10-try limit.
Apple is believed to have patched this hole in older iPhones with iOS 8.1.1; as the iPhone 5c in question is thought to be running iOS 9, the FBI has either chosen a different method or has purchased the device from a company that has discovered an as-yet unreported flaw in later software.
Beginning with the iPhone 5S, PIN guesses are managed in the hardware Secure Enclave, rendering such an attack useless.
If you are referring to this incident, I notice that the Agent got arrested. That would appear to confirm the point I was making. FBI agents caught lying will lose their careers, and quite possibly their freedom.
No, it did not. Nor did you ever point out the specific wording that allowed, as you claim, that Apple would be permitted to keep the software or hardware technique they developed AND the evidence, i.e. the iPhone in question.
Yes it does. It just does not conform to your desire to spread the Apple "Sky is falling!" propaganda.
Not even once.
Not even once.
I was operating under the assumption that you were dishonest. Now I'm beginning to think you are just nuts. Yes, i've shown to you several times where the FBI allowed Apple to use any means they wished to accomplish the task. I've quoted, and linked you to Comey's statement that Apple may keep complete control of any and all software used to access the phone.
But James Comey says the software would only work on the jihadi's device and would be retained by the technology giants - so no one else would have access to it.
And now you act like you don't remember. Like I said, you are coming across as "nuts."
Look, idiot, Comey's statement is
Exactly how many times does such an idiot as you need to be told that if it is
it has no legal existence!
Please show us where FBI Director James Comey is an IT expert who has the legal expertise who can make such a sweeping statement that "the software would only work on the jihadi's device" and know and swear that a technical fact that it would be true. You cannot, because FBI Director James Comey is NOT an IT expert and he cannot. As an IT expert, FBI Director James Comey probably didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn the previous night.
Finally, idiot, the challenge was to show, in the court order, your contention the section of the COURT ORDER where you claim it states unequivocally that Apple can keep the iPhone. You claim you have posted this section. I say it doesn't exist. Post it. Show us. You are claiming a legal impossibility! IDIOT. LIAR.
It is a statement of intent from the highest reaches of FBI authority. If Apple was under the impression that they could not petition for a clarification or modification of the court order, then they are a bunch of fools who need to fire their lawyers.
What Comey said is in fact implied in the court order. It's under that section where they said Apple could use any means they wanted to accomplish the task.
It is implicit in the order that Apple has complete control over the process, you just refuse to read it that way because this interpretation makes Apple inc look like a bunch of Screaming fit throwers, which in fact is exactly what they were.
You must, in fact, read it as narrowly as suits you to justify your screaming bitchfit.
It is a statement of intent from the highest reaches of FBI authority. If Apple was under the impression that they could not petition for a clarification or modification of the court order, then they are a bunch of fools who need to fire their lawyers.
Look, idiot. Come is not testifying in that court. He did not write the Court Order. He did not petition for the Court Order. He was not the attorney who requested it. The Department of Justice is doing that. It doesn't matter what the Director of the FBI intended. He did not write the COURT ORDER. . . and neither the FBI nor the DOJ submitted a petition for a modification of the COURT ORDER in over six weeks the Court Order lay there on the table which says a lot more about their intent than all your fictional protestations of their intent.
Let me repeat DiogenesLamp:
You have been told this by numerous Freepers. . . yet you still can't get it through your neutronium thick skull to your pea sized brain. Only the Court Order matters, not what somebody totally not involved with the actual investigation says. Comey is an administrator, not an Attorney involved with this case, nor an IT specialist, and certainly not a prosecuting attorney who knows the rules of evidence. Comey also stated that they FBI planned on requiring Apple to use the technique to open OTHER devices while the other agents said it only needed to open ONE iPhone. Which is it, Dignenes??? One or many?
Comey said even more in his sworn testimony before Congress that directly contradicted the sworn testimony submitted to the Court to get the Court Order. So which is true of those? Comey's or the agents' who applied for the court order? It can't be both. Are you one of those people who can believe two directly and distinctly false things before breakfast and then swear both are false by lunch? Of course you are. You do it all the time right in these fora.
What Comey said is in fact implied in the court order. It's under that section where they said Apple could use any means they wanted to accomplish the task.
It is implicit in the order that Apple has complete control over the process, you just refuse to read it that way because this interpretation makes Apple inc look like a bunch of Screaming fit throwers, which in fact is exactly what they were.
WOW! You assume a Court Order can be read the way you want to read it. "Implicit" means that it "implies" something. Look it up. Lawyers go to school for many years to learn how to write things CLEARLY to avoid writing unclearly to make things EXPLICIT, not "implicit." You are just wrong. A COURT ORDER cannot "imply" anything. An order from a court is either EXPLICIT, or it doesn't exist. There is no middle ground. The rules of law state that any law or court order MUST be read narrowly, not widely or loosely, nor should anything NOT in it be imputed to it or assumed to be there that is not. Otherwise, the parties would be forever bothering the court for more instructions on what to do as they keep disputing what the court meant with muddy language. . . similar to your muddy thinking.
You assume a lot. Where is the part in the court order that says Apple gets to keep the evidence???? Where does it say they get to keep the iPhone 5C after unlocking it????? WHERE? Oh, where, oh font of everything factual about this court order, is this mythical permission to keep the evidence in perpetuity?
Do NOT post a link, post the actual words—the exact, verbatim words in the Court Order—you claim are there. Don't obfuscate, don't post a link to the director's, or any other third party person's statement, post the exact words from the DAMN COURT ORDER, Diogenes. SHOW US THE WORDS.
You won't. Because you can't. It doesn't exist.
This one i’m going to skip without reading. I’ve heard enough screeching from cult-kooks to know it isn’t worth the trouble to actually pay them any heed.
He simply pulls in to his hole and licks his wounds when called on his Bill Shut. I think I got him on that one. He will not bother to read what calls him out. . . and he can't put up, so now he has to shut up. He tries to make it a victory by claiming he just won't read it. . . but his eyes cannot be that blind. Stupidity is hard to cure. . . but nut cases like him out themselves too easily.
Seriously, he is not like any other Freeper either. . . well, there are a couple who are as deranged as he.
That's because we're reading the actual text, not the gibberish you see through your magical Penumbral Emanation Spectacles*[tm].
*No photograph, drawing, or other illustration accompanying an advertisement for Penumbral Emanation Spectacles[tm] shall constitute a guarantee, either express or implied, that Penumbral Emanation Spectacles[tm] will enable the wearer to see through swimsuits, bras, panties, or any other variety of clothing.
You torture the meaning till you can wring what you want out of the text.
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.