|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 18 2016 14:07 Plansix wrote:
I am still conflicted. I think the judge should amend the order to Apple is required to unlock the phone, but not required to share the key with the FBI, and they should control it. Its weird that they are able to withhold information/access, but I can't deny a search warrant for my house.
If i understand correctly, that analogy is wrong.
I bet you could deny a warrant to give out every chevrolet car-key though. They're protecting their customers, because we both know (don't even try to deny it) that if apple agrees to give out the key or unlock the phone, not even 8 weeks later every iPhone will be an open book. So far, nobody knows how the encryption works, if they "unlock" the phone, that won't be the case anymore.
It's btw not just the US market that would be impacted, apple sells shit in europe too, who would've thought. And a phone that can be tapped at will by the US government certainly won't fly in europe. And i'd bet that the US gov would not be willing to pay reparations there, would they.
I might've had a different opinion on that matter, if it weren't for the fact that the US is constantly and persistently trying to force tech-companies to "cooperate" (enabling back-dooring on their devices). Going as far as the 90s, where they tried to force tech companies to add an actual CHIP to their devices for surveillance purposes. And that was before 9/11, so i don't buy that whole "crucial evidence in a major terrorist attack on us soil" bullshit either.
|
On February 18 2016 14:07 Plansix wrote:
I am still conflicted. I think the judge should amend the order to Apple is required to unlock the phone, but not required to share the key with the FBI, and they should control it. Its weird that they are able to withhold information/access, but I can't deny a search warrant for my house.
If we're going the analogy route, "unlock the phone" is not the same as "gain access to a house". It's not as simple as breaking a window or breaking down a door.
Police can get a warrant to break open a high-security vault with all the tools available to them. The courts can't order the vault maker to create a master key that will open all safes that they make, and then say "we'll only use it for this case, promise".
|
im with wolf here, i mean i could see the argument for "we need the key because we need to be able to hack in at any given moment because of a developing situation", but the dude's dead. just have apple crack open the phone and be done with it, if you need to set up some sort of agreement with apple for getting access to their stuff, do that separately.
|
On February 18 2016 14:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
im with wolf here, i mean i could see the argument for "we need the key because we need to be able to hack in at any given moment because of a developing situation", but the dude's dead. just have apple crack open the phone and be done with it, if you need to set up some sort of agreement with apple for getting access to their stuff, do that separately.
The question is, is that technically even possible?
I assume apple is against it because chances are, that they can't do it without supervision. As i understand it, they need to write an update for the phone, which has to include that "secret key". If "government hackers" could reverse-engineer that, i'd decline too.
edit: same argument could btw be made for installing a security camera in every single household, garage and whatnot. Just make the government promise that they won't use them until "the situation calls for it". Would you?
edit2: just to point out the obvious though, it's kinda funny to see so many people in favor of forcing apple to hack that phone (which is unconstitutional), yet the second amendment is untouchable. Guess the constitution is only important if it suits you.
|
On February 18 2016 13:58 oneofthem wrote:
this is stuff that need not be publicized.
lolwat?
Hillary supports giving the FBI access to any iphone.
|
On February 18 2016 14:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 13:58 oneofthem wrote:
this is stuff that need not be publicized. lolwat? Hillary supports giving the FBI access to any iphone.
because she understands the country and its fears. bernie would simply have to change his mind on that - at the latest when push comes to shove. NO us president can appear to be weak on terror. and the worst thing that could happen is that you are alienating the very people whose job it is to keep the country safe. you criticize and make changes in different channels.
that's also what oneofthem's point is mainly about. he is just trapped in his technocrat speak ^^
don't take my party pooping with agreement to opening phones to the feds. quite the contrary. just making inconvenient points.
|
On February 18 2016 14:56 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 14:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
im with wolf here, i mean i could see the argument for "we need the key because we need to be able to hack in at any given moment because of a developing situation", but the dude's dead. just have apple crack open the phone and be done with it, if you need to set up some sort of agreement with apple for getting access to their stuff, do that separately. The question is, is that technically even possible? I assume apple is against it because chances are, that they can't do it without supervision. As i understand it, they need to write an update for the phone, which has to include that "secret key". If "government hackers" could reverse-engineer that, i'd decline too. edit: same argument could btw be made for installing a security camera in every single household, garage and whatnot. Just make the government promise that they won't use them until "the situation calls for it". Would you?
speaking from a position of technical ignorance, it seems like apple should definitely have a way to get at your data as-is... continuing to speak from my place of ignorance, wouldnt it be possible to set up a system that trawls anonymized data and if something suspicious pops up the gov can go to a judge, present their case and get it de-anonymized or something like that? Can't be that easy though, in likely dunning Kruger-ing.
i meant i can see that particular argument's line of reasoning. not one that i agree with to make it clear.
|
On February 18 2016 15:08 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 14:56 IgnE wrote:On February 18 2016 13:58 oneofthem wrote:
this is stuff that need not be publicized. lolwat? Hillary supports giving the FBI access to any iphone. because she understands the country and its fears. bernie would simply have to change his mind on that - at the latest when push comes to shove. NO us president can appear to be weak on terror. and the worst thing that could happen is that you are alienating the very people whose job it is to keep the country safe. you criticize and make changes in different channels. that's also what oneofthem's point is mainly about. he is just trapped in his technocrat speak ^^ don't take my party pooping with agreement to opening phones to the feds. quite the contrary. just making inconvenient points.
One could also see that as a proof that the next president will shit all over the constitution. Of course, as a presidential candidate you have to pander to the fears of the population, but somehow it seems to be overlooked that if one amendment can be broken, another one might be the next. Could be the second one. And how hilarious would it be to see the outcry then.
speaking from a position of technical ignorance, it seems like apple should definitely have a way to get at your data as-is...
i meant i can see that as a line of reasoning. not one that i agree with to make it clear.
No, they don't.
Dan Guido, an expert in hacking operating systems, said that to unlock the phone, the Federal Bureau of Investigation would need to install an update to Apple's iOS operating system so investigators could circumvent the security protections, including one that wipes data if an incorrect password is entered too many times.
He said only Apple could provide that software because the phones will only install updates that are digitally signed with a secret cryptographic key.
"That key is one of the most valuable pieces of data the entire company owns," he said. "Someone with that key can change all the data on all the iPhones.”
Now, they already declared the phone "a crucial piece of evidence", which pretty much means that apple won't get the phone to unlock it and send the data back. Technicians will go to whereever the phone is, and unlock it there under the eyes of whoever is there - and they will have to leave this piece of software on the phone, too. This piece of software can be re-engineered, and is pretty much the master key to all the other phones.
continuing to speak from my place of ignorance, wouldnt it be possible to set up a system that trawls anonymized data and if something suspicious pops up the gov can go to a judge, present their case and get it de-anonymized or something like that? Can't be that easy though, in likely dunning Kruger-ing.
That's, uhm.. How to put it. Think about it a bit. If something can be "de-anonymized", it's not anonymized in the first place. To enable something "to pop up", it has to be monitored already.
|
On February 18 2016 15:12 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 15:08 Doublemint wrote:On February 18 2016 14:56 IgnE wrote:On February 18 2016 13:58 oneofthem wrote:
this is stuff that need not be publicized. lolwat? Hillary supports giving the FBI access to any iphone. because she understands the country and its fears. bernie would simply have to change his mind on that - at the latest when push comes to shove. NO us president can appear to be weak on terror. and the worst thing that could happen is that you are alienating the very people whose job it is to keep the country safe. you criticize and make changes in different channels. that's also what oneofthem's point is mainly about. he is just trapped in his technocrat speak ^^ don't take my party pooping with agreement to opening phones to the feds. quite the contrary. just making inconvenient points. One could also see that as a proof that the next president will shit all over the constitution. Of course, as a presidential candidate you have to pander to the fears of the population, but somehow it seems to be overlooked that if one amendment can be broken, another one might be the next. Could be the second one. And how hilarious would it be to see the outcry then.
well... shitting on the constitution has been a sport for quite a while now. so there's nothing new really.
|
On February 18 2016 15:10 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 14:56 m4ini wrote:On February 18 2016 14:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
im with wolf here, i mean i could see the argument for "we need the key because we need to be able to hack in at any given moment because of a developing situation", but the dude's dead. just have apple crack open the phone and be done with it, if you need to set up some sort of agreement with apple for getting access to their stuff, do that separately. The question is, is that technically even possible? I assume apple is against it because chances are, that they can't do it without supervision. As i understand it, they need to write an update for the phone, which has to include that "secret key". If "government hackers" could reverse-engineer that, i'd decline too. edit: same argument could btw be made for installing a security camera in every single household, garage and whatnot. Just make the government promise that they won't use them until "the situation calls for it". Would you? speaking from a position of technical ignorance, it seems like apple should definitely have a way to get at your data as-is... continuing to speak from my place of ignorance, wouldnt it be possible to set up a system that trawls anonymized data and if something suspicious pops up the gov can go to a judge, present their case and get it de-anonymized or something like that? Can't be that easy though, in likely dunning Kruger-ing. i meant i can see that particular argument's line of reasoning. not one that i agree with to make it clear.
0FAFBB01BFE123FADDBA318FAE8D9FAA1935ABC310F
On a scale of "Hello" to "Imablowupaplane", how suspicious does that string look to you?
|
On February 18 2016 15:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 15:10 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2016 14:56 m4ini wrote:On February 18 2016 14:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
im with wolf here, i mean i could see the argument for "we need the key because we need to be able to hack in at any given moment because of a developing situation", but the dude's dead. just have apple crack open the phone and be done with it, if you need to set up some sort of agreement with apple for getting access to their stuff, do that separately. The question is, is that technically even possible? I assume apple is against it because chances are, that they can't do it without supervision. As i understand it, they need to write an update for the phone, which has to include that "secret key". If "government hackers" could reverse-engineer that, i'd decline too. edit: same argument could btw be made for installing a security camera in every single household, garage and whatnot. Just make the government promise that they won't use them until "the situation calls for it". Would you? speaking from a position of technical ignorance, it seems like apple should definitely have a way to get at your data as-is... continuing to speak from my place of ignorance, wouldnt it be possible to set up a system that trawls anonymized data and if something suspicious pops up the gov can go to a judge, present their case and get it de-anonymized or something like that? Can't be that easy though, in likely dunning Kruger-ing. i meant i can see that particular argument's line of reasoning. not one that i agree with to make it clear. 0FAFBB01BFE123FADDBA318FAE8D9FAA1935ABC310F On a scale of "Hello" to "Imablowupaplane", how suspicious does that string look to you?
I think you tried to order a hooker.
edit:
The phone requires two digital "keys" to unscramble the data: a passcode entered by the user when they want to use the device and a unique 256-bit AES key that is coded into the hardware during manufacture. The hardware key cannot be removed from the device, which prevents hackers from copying the contents of its hard drive and then cracking the passcode with the help of powerful computers.
And that is pretty much the reason why they won't and shouldn't do it.
The "encryption" is hardcoded, so they can't crack that one phone and then send an updated security key to all the others.
edit2: i lied, "all the others up to the iPhone 5C" would be correct.
|
On February 18 2016 15:20 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 15:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 18 2016 15:10 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 18 2016 14:56 m4ini wrote:On February 18 2016 14:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
im with wolf here, i mean i could see the argument for "we need the key because we need to be able to hack in at any given moment because of a developing situation", but the dude's dead. just have apple crack open the phone and be done with it, if you need to set up some sort of agreement with apple for getting access to their stuff, do that separately. The question is, is that technically even possible? I assume apple is against it because chances are, that they can't do it without supervision. As i understand it, they need to write an update for the phone, which has to include that "secret key". If "government hackers" could reverse-engineer that, i'd decline too. edit: same argument could btw be made for installing a security camera in every single household, garage and whatnot. Just make the government promise that they won't use them until "the situation calls for it". Would you? speaking from a position of technical ignorance, it seems like apple should definitely have a way to get at your data as-is... continuing to speak from my place of ignorance, wouldnt it be possible to set up a system that trawls anonymized data and if something suspicious pops up the gov can go to a judge, present their case and get it de-anonymized or something like that? Can't be that easy though, in likely dunning Kruger-ing. i meant i can see that particular argument's line of reasoning. not one that i agree with to make it clear. 0FAFBB01BFE123FADDBA318FAE8D9FAA1935ABC310F On a scale of "Hello" to "Imablowupaplane", how suspicious does that string look to you? I think you tried to order a hooker. edit: Show nested quote + The phone requires two digital "keys" to unscramble the data: a passcode entered by the user when they want to use the device and a unique 256-bit AES key that is coded into the hardware during manufacture. The hardware key cannot be removed from the device, which prevents hackers from copying the contents of its hard drive and then cracking the passcode with the help of powerful computers. And that is pretty much the reason why they won't and shouldn't do it. The "encryption" is hardcoded, so they can't crack that one phone and then send an updated security key to all the others.
apple's security measures are basically an overreaction to a previous overreaction(nsa scandal/causa snowden).
|
On February 18 2016 15:12 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 15:08 Doublemint wrote:On February 18 2016 14:56 IgnE wrote:On February 18 2016 13:58 oneofthem wrote:
this is stuff that need not be publicized. lolwat? Hillary supports giving the FBI access to any iphone. because she understands the country and its fears. bernie would simply have to change his mind on that - at the latest when push comes to shove. NO us president can appear to be weak on terror. and the worst thing that could happen is that you are alienating the very people whose job it is to keep the country safe. you criticize and make changes in different channels. that's also what oneofthem's point is mainly about. he is just trapped in his technocrat speak ^^ don't take my party pooping with agreement to opening phones to the feds. quite the contrary. just making inconvenient points. One could also see that as a proof that the next president will shit all over the constitution. Of course, as a presidential candidate you have to pander to the fears of the population, but somehow it seems to be overlooked that if one amendment can be broken, another one might be the next. Could be the second one. And how hilarious would it be to see the outcry then. Show nested quote +speaking from a position of technical ignorance, it seems like apple should definitely have a way to get at your data as-is...
i meant i can see that as a line of reasoning. not one that i agree with to make it clear. No, they don't. Show nested quote +Dan Guido, an expert in hacking operating systems, said that to unlock the phone, the Federal Bureau of Investigation would need to install an update to Apple's iOS operating system so investigators could circumvent the security protections, including one that wipes data if an incorrect password is entered too many times.
He said only Apple could provide that software because the phones will only install updates that are digitally signed with a secret cryptographic key.
"That key is one of the most valuable pieces of data the entire company owns," he said. "Someone with that key can change all the data on all the iPhones.” Now, they already declared the phone "a crucial piece of evidence", which pretty much means that apple won't get the phone to unlock it and send the data back. Technicians will go to whereever the phone is, and unlock it there under the eyes of whoever is there - and they will have to leave this piece of software on the phone, too. This piece of software can be re-engineered, and is pretty much the master key to all the other phones. Show nested quote +continuing to speak from my place of ignorance, wouldnt it be possible to set up a system that trawls anonymized data and if something suspicious pops up the gov can go to a judge, present their case and get it de-anonymized or something like that? Can't be that easy though, in likely dunning Kruger-ing. That's, uhm.. How to put it. Think about it a bit. If something can be "de-anonymized", it's not anonymized in the first place. To enable something "to pop up", it has to be monitored already.
It sounds like the FBI is really trying to just get the key, so screw them in this particular case.
My idea was to have apple set it up so the communications from different devices accounts are just tagged with a random code and have no personal identifying information, provide the data like that to the fbi and then if the fbi spots troubling things they present it to the court then apple provides actual details on the person if the court issued a warrant.
As far as random gibberish goes... Well there's gonna be a lot of noise and such but I figure the fbi can build their own ibm Watson to parse things.
|
On February 18 2016 15:29 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 15:12 m4ini wrote:On February 18 2016 15:08 Doublemint wrote:On February 18 2016 14:56 IgnE wrote:On February 18 2016 13:58 oneofthem wrote:
this is stuff that need not be publicized. lolwat? Hillary supports giving the FBI access to any iphone. because she understands the country and its fears. bernie would simply have to change his mind on that - at the latest when push comes to shove. NO us president can appear to be weak on terror. and the worst thing that could happen is that you are alienating the very people whose job it is to keep the country safe. you criticize and make changes in different channels. that's also what oneofthem's point is mainly about. he is just trapped in his technocrat speak ^^ don't take my party pooping with agreement to opening phones to the feds. quite the contrary. just making inconvenient points. One could also see that as a proof that the next president will shit all over the constitution. Of course, as a presidential candidate you have to pander to the fears of the population, but somehow it seems to be overlooked that if one amendment can be broken, another one might be the next. Could be the second one. And how hilarious would it be to see the outcry then. speaking from a position of technical ignorance, it seems like apple should definitely have a way to get at your data as-is...
i meant i can see that as a line of reasoning. not one that i agree with to make it clear. No, they don't. Dan Guido, an expert in hacking operating systems, said that to unlock the phone, the Federal Bureau of Investigation would need to install an update to Apple's iOS operating system so investigators could circumvent the security protections, including one that wipes data if an incorrect password is entered too many times.
He said only Apple could provide that software because the phones will only install updates that are digitally signed with a secret cryptographic key.
"That key is one of the most valuable pieces of data the entire company owns," he said. "Someone with that key can change all the data on all the iPhones.” Now, they already declared the phone "a crucial piece of evidence", which pretty much means that apple won't get the phone to unlock it and send the data back. Technicians will go to whereever the phone is, and unlock it there under the eyes of whoever is there - and they will have to leave this piece of software on the phone, too. This piece of software can be re-engineered, and is pretty much the master key to all the other phones. continuing to speak from my place of ignorance, wouldnt it be possible to set up a system that trawls anonymized data and if something suspicious pops up the gov can go to a judge, present their case and get it de-anonymized or something like that? Can't be that easy though, in likely dunning Kruger-ing. That's, uhm.. How to put it. Think about it a bit. If something can be "de-anonymized", it's not anonymized in the first place. To enable something "to pop up", it has to be monitored already. It sounds like the FBI is really trying to just get the key, so screw them in this particular case. My idea was to have apple set it up so the communications from different devices accounts are just tagged with a random code and have no personal identifying information, provide the data like that to the fbi and then if the fbi spots troubling things they present it to the court then apple provides actual details on the person if the court issued a warrant. As far as random gibberish goes... Well there's gonna be a lot of noise and such but I figure the fbi can build their own ibm Watson to parse things.
I think you missed the point of the random gibberish.
That's what encryption does. It turns everything into gibberish. You can't parse it unless you have the encryption key, or a powerful enough computer to brute force it.
|
This "hardware key" which is needed from Apple (+update of course) is like licenses key for Windows. Its unique to device (and even sesion) the same key wouldnt work on different device. FBI is asking for one key, not key genaration mechanism. When microsoft gives out their licenses key (after You buy Windows) they are not compromizing other licenses. Same with this hardwere key, unless its really stupid - knowing one key would not give You s way to genarte more keys.
TLDR: One key =/= key generation mechanism.
|
On February 18 2016 16:48 Silvanel wrote:
This "hardware key" which is needed from Apple (+update of course) is like licenses key for Windows. Its unique to device (and even sesion) the same key wouldnt work on different device. FBI is asking for one key, not key genaration mechanism. When microsoft gives out their licenses key (after You buy Windows) they are not compromizing other licenses. Same with this hardwere key, unless its really stupid - knowing one key would not give You s way to genarte more keys.
TLDR: One key =/= key generation mechanism.
Sorry to be blunt, but that's bullshit.
It's NOT like the windows key for iPhones before 6. After 6, even if apple wanted, they couldn't unlock it, because they don't know the "user id" which came in form of something called "Security Enclave". Which is an extra chip, working together with a UNIQUE (which is new for iPhone 6 and up, making 5 and before inherently NOT unique) user ID that apple doesn't even know. It's basically an extra computer in your phone, which purely is there to prevent breaching into your phone. Even by apple.
edit:
Ah, i was right.
As a remedy, the FBI has asked for Apple to perform the following actions on their behalf:
[Provide] the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File (“SIF”) that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory (“RAM”) and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device’s flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade (“DFU”) mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 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 DEVICE through a computer allowed the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.
|
On February 18 2016 18:22 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 16:48 Silvanel wrote:
This "hardware key" which is needed from Apple (+update of course) is like licenses key for Windows. Its unique to device (and even sesion) the same key wouldnt work on different device. FBI is asking for one key, not key genaration mechanism. When microsoft gives out their licenses key (after You buy Windows) they are not compromizing other licenses. Same with this hardwere key, unless its really stupid - knowing one key would not give You s way to genarte more keys.
TLDR: One key =/= key generation mechanism. Sorry to be blunt, but that's bullshit. It's NOT like the windows key for iPhones before 6. After 6, even if apple wanted, they couldn't unlock it, because they don't know the "user id" which came in form of something called "Security Enclave". Which is an extra chip, working together with a UNIQUE (which is new for iPhone 6 and up, making 5 and before inherently NOT unique) user ID that apple doesn't even know. It's basically an extra computer in your phone, which purely is there to prevent breaching into your phone. Even by apple. edit: Ah, i was right. Show nested quote +As a remedy, the FBI has asked for Apple to perform the following actions on their behalf:
[Provide] the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File (“SIF”) that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory (“RAM”) and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device’s flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade (“DFU”) mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 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 DEVICE through a computer allowed the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis. Good luck FBI. Tech companies will go full SOPA for this.
|
On February 18 2016 18:22 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 16:48 Silvanel wrote:
This "hardware key" which is needed from Apple (+update of course) is like licenses key for Windows. Its unique to device (and even sesion) the same key wouldnt work on different device. FBI is asking for one key, not key genaration mechanism. When microsoft gives out their licenses key (after You buy Windows) they are not compromizing other licenses. Same with this hardwere key, unless its really stupid - knowing one key would not give You s way to genarte more keys.
TLDR: One key =/= key generation mechanism. Sorry to be blunt, but that's bullshit. It's NOT like the windows key for iPhones before 6. After 6, even if apple wanted, they couldn't unlock it, because they don't know the "user id" which came in form of something called "Security Enclave". Which is an extra chip, working together with a UNIQUE (which is new for iPhone 6 and up, making 5 and before inherently NOT unique) user ID that apple doesn't even know. It's basically an extra computer in your phone, which purely is there to prevent breaching into your phone. Even by apple. edit: Ah, i was right. Show nested quote +As a remedy, the FBI has asked for Apple to perform the following actions on their behalf:
[Provide] the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File (“SIF”) that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory (“RAM”) and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device’s flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade (“DFU”) mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 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 DEVICE through a computer allowed the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.
Dude, You seriously lack reading comprahension. I am talking about hardware key that needs to be sent to force update of software of Iphone. Which is what is needed (along with new software of course) to bypass protection of Ihpne5C (iphone in question).
Iphone6 is totally different game, but i wasnt talking about them, and theres is no need of discussing them in connection to this particular case.
Iphone5C dont have Secure Enclave. Which is clearly stated in article i provided earlier (the same You are quoting).
|
Apple has said they are ready to go to the Supreme Court over it soooo that shit ain't getting settled any time soon.
|
The other way of attacking the issue by FBI might be hiring some strong embeded software company to engineer some hardware based solution with taping to processor directly and sending interupts/other commands during execution of Iphone software on processer. But there are multiple problems with this approach
1.MUCH longer
2.MUCH more expansive
3.No gurantee of success
4.Worse for PR
5.Might (i dont really know what FBI can and cant do) not be legal
Everything would be much easier with Apple cooperation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
