Apple's 'Unbreakable' iOS Device Encryption Highlighted

[dethmaShine]

1. 'only likely to be broken in 10 years' = 'broken in a few months with a bit of luck'
2. >implying everything doesn't use AES
3. >implying all current cryptography can't be broken easily with a quantum computer

[citation] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor's_algorithm

jimmy status = extremely rustled

Who is implying that everything uses AES?

Also, who is implying that all current cryptography cannot be broken with a quantum computer? Moreover, where is your dearly quantum computer in 2012 that can probably break such encryption? Can probably multiply 3 and 5 and result in 15, but break an encryption? We are years away from that.

 

[Levelut]

Unrelated

Since I don't know where to post something like this, I guess I'll post it here.

How is it that there's been so much trouble with iMessage lately and we have not a single article on this webpage? All the people I know in latin america have been experiencing this issue that every message we send we get the damn red circle with the exclamation point stating "Not Delivered".

Also, I'd like to know why no one is bashing Apple about having to log in around 15 times on an iPhone to get everything to work. I can't believe that I have to separately sign into iMessage, Facetime, iCloud, App Store and iBooks. MAKE IT AUTOMATIC ONCE I LOG INTO FREAKIN ICLOUD!!!!!


Just wanted to see if someone else feels the way I feel

 

[Nightarchaon]

Who is implying that everything uses AES?

Also, who is implying that all current cryptography cannot be broken with a quantum computer? Moreover, where is your dearly quantum computer in 2012 that can probably break such encryption? Can probably multiply 3 and 5 and result in 15, but break an encryption? We are years away from that.

Obviously if your using the Quantum computer recovered from the roswell crash site you get your cracked results back before you finish entering the query.

However you do have to provide your own tin foil hat

 

[ChrisA]

Not to be picky, but "a device with an eight-digit passcode could take up to 15 years to compromise" does not equal 'unbreakable'.

The 256-bit AES key and the passcode are not the same thing. The security system is layered. One is on top of the other.

The AES system is truly not breakable. But the passcode can be easy or hard depending on the code. I bet most phones are set to "1234"

 

[RodThePlod]

"Not to be picky" is as certain the preceed pickiness as "with all due respect" is certain to forshadow an utter lack thereof.

Heh. Add "In my humble opinion" to that list. I have a colleague who says this whenever he wants to state his not-so-humble opinion

RTP.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

And yet tools like MacLockPick can extract the information from iOS devices.

Additionally, this is the same encryption used by OS X yet the government can crack it in a matter of minutes.

 

[Bezetos]

The AES system is truly not breakable.

The only "system" that is truly not breakable is a one-time pad (OTP). Any other system can be broken using brute-force in a finite (alas sometimes enormous) amount of time.

 

[Dustman]

at first when i read the title i was like 'uh oh.. there goes jailbreaking the new iPhone' but then breathed a sigh of relief when i actually read the thing.

 

[KnightWRX]

And yet tools like MacLockPick can extract the information from iOS devices.

Unencrypted devices probably, or devices for which they can extract the encryption key from another source like your computer's compromised keychain tool.

If you don't have the encryption key, there is no way you can decrypt AES-256 in a meaningful amount of time.

 

[dethmaShine]

The only "system" that is truly not breakable is a one-time pad (OTP). Any other system can be broken using brute-force in a finite (alas sometimes enormous) amount of time.

Exactly.

But then sometimes, you have to relax your parameters and use adequate terminology to specify guidelines and terms of use.

 

[nagromme]

An eight-digit passcode would "only" take 92 days to compromise. A four-digit passcode (from my experience the most popular one) would only take 13 minutes to compromise.

In addition, by my calculation, the device will digitally shred itself in 800 milliseconds! So wouldn’t you have to force-reboot the device after every 9 attempts to keep the guessing going? (Or would the device shred on the 10th failure even IF the device were rebooted? I assume not, but ain’t testing!)

Anyone with serious security needs is going to use the 10-tries option, and then the data is unrecoverable as I understand it. (In other words, after shredding, you’d have to guess the full encryption key, not just the passcode. Not happening.)

"And with brute-force attacks required to break iOS passcodes needing to be run on the device itself at a speed of 80 milliseconds per attempt, a device with an eight-digit passcode could take up to 15 years to compromise.”

 

[Krevnik]

Who is implying that everything uses AES?

Also, who is implying that all current cryptography cannot be broken with a quantum computer? Moreover, where is your dearly quantum computer in 2012 that can probably break such encryption? Can probably multiply 3 and 5 and result in 15, but break an encryption? We are years away from that.

Depends on the type of encryption as well. There are two core types:


Symmetric - The key is the secret, it shouldn't be shared publicly. AES is this way.
Asymmetric - The key is shared, but is buried in a math problem complex enough that a classical computer cannot break it down in a reasonable amount of time. Also known as public key encryption. RSA is this way.


Quantum computing mostly poses a problem for Asymmetric encryption, as symmetric algorithms' primary design flaws are exploitable without it (because the users share too much information publicly that let you math out the key from it). Some protections in these algorithms against these flaws may not work in the quantum computing world, though.


With a public key system though, the private key is two extremely large prime numbers. The public key is those two prime numbers multiplied together. So really, the only thing protecting your private key is that it is really time consuming to factor out those two very large prime numbers. If a quantum computer can factor it nearly instantly, say good-bye to things like SSL, code signing, PGP, and so on being secure.

 

[boronathan]

The only "system" that is truly not breakable is a one-time pad (OTP). Any other system can be broken using brute-force in a finite (alas sometimes enormous) amount of time.

Yes brute force will work eventually. But not only is it unrealistic, it's impossible given the computing powers of today's machine.

So while technically you could brute force an aes key, chances are the world will be over before you try even 1% of the possibilities lol.

 

[bushido]

theres no such think as unbreakable security

 

[boronathan]

theres no such think as unbreakable security

Good luck.

 

[dethmaShine]

Depends on the type of encryption as well. There are two core types:

Symmetric - The key is the secret, it shouldn't be shared publicly. AES is this way.
Asymmetric - The key is shared, but is buried in a math problem complex enough that a classical computer cannot break it down in a reasonable amount of time. Also known as public key encryption. RSA is this way.

Yes, but that was never a part of the context I referred to in my post.

Quantum computing mostly poses a problem for Asymmetric encryption

I agree. Mostly.

, as symmetric algorithms' primary design flaws are exploitable without it (because the users share too much information publicly that let you math out the key from it). Some protections in these algorithms against these flaws may not work in the quantum computing world, though.

Symmetric encryption has nothing to do with users sharing too much information publicly or the math related to any of it. Symmetric key encryption deals with two or more users sharing content in a private link. The key is only available with the parties involved in the private link. There are however attacks against Symmetric Key algorithms.

With a public key system though, the private key is two extremely large prime numbers. The public key is those two prime numbers multiplied together. So really, the only thing protecting your private key is that it is really time consuming to factor out those two very large prime numbers. If a quantum computer can factor it nearly instantly, say good-bye to things like SSL, code signing, PGP, and so on being secure.

I know about Public Key Cryptography but thanks nonetheless. People have been trying to figure out prime factors for decades now. They have written countless papers, books, code but nothing to fruition till now.

RSA is not 100% secure anymore, though. But just like before, there have been newer algorithms to precede previous ones. Like AES, etc.

We have substitutes for RSA that are more secure than RSA itself.

As far as SSL is concerned, it is hackable as of NOW. Code signing depends on the method use for signing code or digital signatures.

Again, nothing is 'unbreakable' and whatever is 'unbreakable' cannot be used for almost anything.

EDIT: Again, there's nothing like a quantum computer as of now. Nothing concrete has been achieved in so many years.

But nevertheless, I'm gearing myself for post-quantum cryptography. So I'll be able to help you guys out.

 

[Bezetos]

Yes brute force will work eventually. But not only is it unrealistic, it's impossible given the computing powers of today's machine.

So while technically you could brute force an aes key, chances are the world will be over before you try even 1% of the possibilities lol.

Of course, but if we're talking pragmatically about truly unbreakable "systems", at the moment only the one-time pad is unbreakable.

In any other system it is mathematically probable that you can guess the key in your first attempt or first few attempts (although, yes, extremely unlikely). This is not the case with a one-time pad.

 

[jackal123uk]

Big deal. Most smartphones use encryption.

Moreover:


That's not true.

Direct quote from Apple's white paper:


An eight-digit passcode would "only" take 92 days to compromise. A four-digit passcode (from my experience the most popular one) would only take 13 minutes to compromise.

I'm guessing an eight-character alphanumeric passcode will be in the region of 15 years?

 

[quietly]

And yet Apple still can't figure out how to prevent a website from allowing the device to be jailbroken.

To do that though, I think they would still need a way around the passcode lock. What would make me sufficiently scared would be a jailbreak performed on a locked iOS device while retaining current data.

 

[StyxMaker]

Obviously if your using the Quantum computer recovered from the roswell crash site you get your cracked results back before you finish entering the query.

However you do have to provide your own tin foil hat

And make sure you use tin foil, aluminum foil doesn't really work. That's the mistake most people make.

 

[faroZ06]

Not to be picky, but "a device with an eight-digit passcode could take up to 15 years to compromise" does not equal 'unbreakable'.

But 15 years... By then, I wouldn't care much if someone broke into my 15-year old iPhone.

 

[Bezetos]

I'm guessing an eight-character alphanumeric passcode will be in the region of 15 years?

Correct. My finickiness referred to the use of the word digit as opposed to character, although bear in mind that numeric PIN codes are the most popular codes amongst iPhone users hence it is important to point out the difference.

 

[JoshDC]

Eight decimal digits ~ 34 binary digits. => 2^34 probably keys.

So according to the rootN formula, on an average it would take approximately 2^17 trials to find the random key. This is such a small number that I maybe able to crack in a matter of days and not 15 years.

What's this rootN formula? Finding a random key will, on average, take half of the key space and not the square root of it.

 

[faroZ06]

And yet tools like MacLockPick can extract the information from iOS devices.

Additionally, this is the same encryption used by OS X yet the government can crack it in a matter of minutes.

Access to the device's software can be restricted with a PIN passcode, and while the default passcode option for iOS is a four-digit number, users can opt to use significantly longer and more complex passcodes.

I'm assuming MacLockPick cannot extract info from devices with these complicated passcodes.

Also, are you assuming that the government is using TRANSLTR on Mac OS to crack it? Because a supercomputer like that would crack it very quickly unless you give it some kind of mega password.

 

[dwsolberg]

"The algorithm is so strong that no computer imaginable for the foreseeable future..."

Humans have a bad record of "imagining" what computers will be capable of doing. Also, what happens after the foreseeable future? Imagine that.