Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Acquired Firmware Security Company LegbaCore Last November
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What are the side effects of Legbacore?
Still being studied.
Legbacore installs cores into your leg bones to make them appear firm.
Could be a placebo effect as Apple a day could do the same.
I don't jailbreak so I don't its no big deal in that sense, but I agree this may make it harder.
I don't think they bought the company to shut down jailbreaking but rather close off exploits for hackers (which the JBing also used but may not now be able to)
I get the relationship between security and privacy.
What I am saying is that when a policeman turns up with a warrant from the court, security/privacy mean jack . The NSA goes not need to go through security to get your private data, they just ask.
Last edited:
Exploits for hackers and jailbreaks are the same result. You need an exploit for a jailbreak to happen. IMO they bought them since Chinese hackers are coming out with new jailbreak ls days after a firmware is out and not like the old days where we had to wait many days/months. These Chinese jailbreaks install a secondary App Store in places like China which have most of the apps for free. This causes Apple to lose millions in possible revenue overseas. It's way cheaper to hire someone to close exploits than the alternatives.
I don't jb anymore since most of the apps I used to use for a jb I now I side load them with Xcode.
Agreed, that was the point I was trying to make, but not too well it seems
I'm mainly complaining that any program you run can edit any file that the user has permission to edit and can use any driver. Like why should Firefox be allowed to edit my home directory and access my mic? Windows, BSD, and Debian have the same problem. I've only seen it addressed well in iOS.
And yeah, Gatekeeper is a joke.
Last edited:
Actually, no. When a policeman turns up with a warrant from the court, security is the *only* way to protect your privacy. A warrant is not the same thing as a password. A warrant will not decrypt data or unlock your computer or phone. A warrant is simply permission for the police to do the search.
You missed my point, the NSA does need to hack to get the data, they can legally request it, and security is useless in that scenario. (Unless it's a device like a iPhone, where even apple cannot access it) A warrant is not just search, depends on the warrant.
Define "can legally request it", and specify how it makes security "useless in that scenario".
A warrant really is just government-granted permission to search what government agents would otherwise *not* have permission to search.
I'm not a lawyer, are you? Just follow this case https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...r-apple-in-backdoor-dispute-with-fbi.1957089/ it's unwinding as we speak!
You realize the Judge ordered apple to comply ? Also read the supporting evidence....The FBI have access to his iCloud backups! They asked.....sorry, apple was ordered to hand them over, making security of iCloud backups useless. The part in question , as I said that would be , is the data on the iPhone, as even apple cannot access that. What apple can access, was handed over!
Court ORDERED apple to hand over data, FBI I now has iCloud backups of the device.....see.
Ignore warrants mate, thats side tracking you, Google court orders. And also warrants are not just search. This is a good case to illustrate how "secure" your data is when held off the device in something like iCloud, when admins can access it and the court asks for it .
First, *you* were the one who claimed that warrants make security useless.
I'm glad that you're finally admitting you were incorrect with that claim, but it actually just goes to show you're wrong about the rest of it as well.
Yes, the court has ordered Apple to create a security bypass for the FBI (not to "hand over data" as you claimed). Specifically, they have asked Apple to create a special version of iOS that can be installed on iDevices that: a) bypasses the enforced wait times to retry passwords, b) allows password entry via the lightning port, c) disables the wipe on 10 failed passwords feature, and d) allows the installation of said special iOS version on a locked piece of hardware *without* the password. To *do* this, Apple would have to break the security of their own devices.
Prior to iOS 8, Apple could hand over the encryption key for iOS devices. They no longer can, because they don't have them, and never have. This is *security*. Further improvements in security, from both a hardware *and* software perspective, in later releases further limit Apple's ability to give the government what it has requested. Again, this is *security*. As I said before, in the face of a warrant (which is permission to do the search, nothing more), or a court order, only *security* will protect your privacy. Well-engineered security will do so. Poorly engineered security will not.
Given that Apple is still fighting the court order, it is *supremely* unlikely that anything has been handed over yet. However, even *if* Apple has handed over the iCloud backup (which is encrypted with a key that Apple doesn't have, and never did have as of iOS 8), then security is *still* protecting privacy.
The search allowed by a warrant may turn up your encrypted data. Unless it *also* turns up the password/key for said data, the security of the encryption is still protecting your privacy. Once the government has said encrypted data lawfully in their possession, they can certainly *try* to break the encryption, but good encryption makes that difficult. (Apparently *too* difficult, or they wouldn't be trying to do an end-run around the encryption by getting Apple to make their job easier.)
You seem to be under the impression that 'the government has asked for it' makes something a) legal, b) *possible*, and c) practical. None of those things automatically follow from the initial statement.
Again, when faced with a warrant (or a court order), *security* is the only thing that protects privacy. Also, when faced with hackers, security is the only thing that protects privacy. Security which can be broken by an interested government can be broken by interested hackers, so if your security won't stop one, it won't stop either.
Look at posts 38 and 60, I acknowledged this exact scenario .
Did you even read the case unfolding ? There is no *IF* about the iCloud backups being handed over. Up until October 19.....the FBI has access to the data in the iCloud backups!! shock!
Seriously , read the case in question. Really read it, apple complied with everything the FBI asked for except access to the iPhone, which apple does not have, as I stated back in post 60. It's really simple. This news is getting so much coverage , good luck finding a news story out there that supports the view you want to see.
Would you like me to link about 20 stories all stating Apple handed over the backups and the FBI has accused the data in them? Or would you like to continue living in your alternative universise where the iCloud backups are just as secure as data on the iPhones ??? See post 60 again....