Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How is that NOT a backdoor? If I disable security measures, allowing someone to break in, I have created an backdoor.

A backdoor is a way to instantly bypass normal authentication. In the case of the FBI request, authentication remained in play. The real passcode was still required. In fact, if the guy had used a strong passcode, brute force could still take a half decade.

Hmmmm, oh really?
Just on that one particular device??
& never ever ever on another?
Just on that one, forever & ever... amen?

I'm talking about the requirements for each doing it each time, and how Apple overhyped the possible consequences of doing so, in an attempt to stir up fear.

The FBI did not ask that a universal backdoor be built into public versions, nor that they be given it.

Apple was even free to create a device specific version, which they said they could do.

Most importantly, no outside device could load even a non-device-specific version anyway, since Apple's public facing update servers would not sign it. Without that, a leaked version would be as little use to anyone, as versions are now to anyone trying to downgrade to an iOS that is no longer signed.
 
Last edited:
I wish Apple would try to be less dramatic, and more precise, in their public comments.

Despite what Apple says in their inflammatory statements, the FBI didn't ask for a backdoor built into iOS. Everyone knows that would be a bad idea.

Instead they only wanted the alarm system attempt limits disabled on that particular device, so they could try a ton of different keys on its front door.

Except that it would have set a precedent, meaning Apple would have been made to do the same thing again and again and again. It would have become a back door.
 
No surprise in this result.

Hussein doesn't believe in accountability.
Apple gets a pass from the devotees.
No one mentions that the phone isn't so secure after all.
Big Government continues unabated.
Liberal progressives celebrate as planned.

It's all a bizarre show.

Stop posting drunk. Get sober, gather your viewpoints and make a coherent post. Oh if you don't mind.... Back them up with facts.... Just for **** and giggles.

Thx.
 
I highly doubt the data on this phone will be used in the US judicial system. This will be used to indentify, hunt and eventually eliminate terrorists.
Except the individuals involved had separate personal phones they went to great lengths to destroy, and they didn't bother to do anything to this work phone. Given their awareness of the potential for leaking info, it's highly likely they didn't make any calls or texts to bad guys with this phone, and left it at home when they went on any bad-guy errands.

So what the FBI will find on it is highly likely to be no more than call records for work-related calls, work-related texts, GPS coordinates of various mundane places around town unrelated to bad guys, and maybe their high score on Angry Birds that they surreptitiously played at work.

How exactly will they use those bits to identify/hunt/eliminate terrorists?

This case was about setting precedent. So they - and others - could come back and say, "now that you've got that software, we've got this other phone and a court order" (wash/rinse/repeat). It was never about "just this one time".
 
And because of how the evidence handlers attempted to change the icloud login in this specific iphone that Apple refused to unlock this phone?

i think you've over simplified this point to the extent it is untrue...

apple previously unlocked phones subject to legal orders, where they had the capability to do so (a capability which existed in prior versions of iOS but was removed in more recent updates). they also had other ways of retrieving the data but the easiest way was to unlock the phone. when they changed this behaviour, they could still fall back on other methods (ie getting the data stored in an icloud backup and unlocking that. kind of like a detective snooping through your diary instead of asking you directly for an alibi) but they could not unlock the phones. in this case, that was going to be the "go to method" to access the data on the phone (this is technically not unlocking the phone, although the end result - access to the data inside - is clearly the same). because the evidence handlers changed the icloud login, this could not be done. apple also refused to unlock this phone, claiming it would compromise security of all phones to create a backdoor.


you make it sound like apple got ****** and said "well we're not touching it now you messed with it"
 
#1. This was NEVER about this 1 phone this was about setting presidence. If Apple unlocked this for this reason they would have to unlock more.
#2. The FBI figured they would lose because Apple would fight all the way to the Supreme Court.
#3. Now more companies will fight the FBI is using law from 1798 the All Wrights Act which requires companies to provide reasonable assistance to law enforcement.
#4. So big deal they unlocked an iPhone 5c Unknown if they can Unlock a iPhone 6s.
#5. My guess is that Cellebrite is a CIA front company completely legit business, but all over doing side missions for the CIA or US government so if anything happens hey it was not the USA it was this independent company. http://www.cellebrite.com/Executive-Team

This is relevant from the Twitter history of one of the Cellebrite founders.

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6053155/in-the-matter-of-the-search.0.pdf

Apple in the recent past, leading up to this case has unlocked many many many iphones for the US government (note that I do not write British or German, as they have undoubtedly also requested and received unlocks)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-apple-has-unlocked-iphones-before/
The case involves a suspect named Jun Feng who is charged with possession and distribution of methamphetamine. Feng's iPhone 5s was seized under a search warrant, but investigators have not been able to unlock it.

"The government is not aware of any prior instance in which Apple objected to such an order," U.S. Attorney Robert L. Capers stated in court documents. "Indeed, Apple has repeatedly assisted law enforcement officers in federal criminal cases by extracting data from passcode-locked iPhones pursuant to court orders."

At a hearing on the case in Brooklyn on Monday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Saritha Komatireddy said Apple has complied with the government in "at least" 70 similar cases, Vice's Motherboard reports. However, the company is now taking a harder line and fighting the request to unlock Feng's iPhone, even though it was running older iOS 7 software that Apple could easily unlock.

In addition to this, it is very clear that Apple has been unlocking phones not just at request by the US government in the past, but for phones and cases that have not been directly involved within US national security.

The FBI ran to the courts because Apple forced them to. As Apple refused to unlock the phone, the government had to other recourse than to compel Apple to do so, and the only way to do that is through a court order. Obviously this case wouldve kept getting kicked higher and higher until there was a resolution. A resolution of this case is what wouldve created precedence.

I find it just as likely that Cellebrite is a front as some interested entity dumping instructions and techniques to Cellebrite as a front in it of itself to give the government tools to subvert the passcode lock on the iphone 5c.
 
Except that it would have set a precedent, meaning Apple would have been made to do the same thing again and again and again. It would have become a back door.

Apple had given real back door versions that bypassed authentication (no passcode needed at all) to law enforcement agencies for years for previous models.

This situation was more about the FBI's lawyers stupidly making a public court based request, which according to Cook in Time magazine, ticked him off because he preferred requests that were sealed from public view. With all the public news, he felt he had no choice but to publicly resist. However, he said that if ordered to, Apple would do what was asked.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Avalontor
Apple lawyers had already stated that if the phone was broken into they wanted to know the method. Which if the warrant had remained open would probably have been granted by the judge. By dropping the action against Apple, apple's lawyers can no longer claim that knowledge as no case is pending.

So since Cellibrite is a private Company from Isreal. All Apple needs to do is send them a locked phone, pay the $15,000 just like the FBI did and they will unlock for Apple and disclose how they did it. Apple wouldn't even have to do so directly. Quite simple to do so as a shell company or even fake being some sort of security agency. Maybe it will take a few more bucks, but if need be Apple could actually buy the company. Be assured Apple will find out the methodology used.

The how has already been partially disclosed in earlier article about Cellibrite. Most likely scenario was they intercepted the signal that counted the attempts, resetting or leaving at zero. That way a brute force attack by attached computer could try all the codes. Without tripping the ten try limit, if it was even set. They would have the four digit unlock code within a day or so.

After that FBI could snoop the phone at will. As to what they found, FBI will never disclose that and would probably lie saying they got the information needed to complete their investigation. Which of course means nothing. Nice an vague which could easily mean they found nothing, which allows them to close this loose end. At most they might be able to see the GPS locations of the 18 or so minutes they lost track of the terrorists. Which was stated somewhere in past articles.

As for any other useful information, it is quite obvious to any thinking individual that since the terrorists were so meticulous as to destroy two other phones and get rid of their computer hard drive. That is where any useful information was located as to who else was in their cell. Or other terrorist contacts. If there was any evidence on this iPhone, the terrorists would have destroyed it as well. The were very meticulous in their planning and execution of the murders.

The FBI was hoping that the negative publicity of this case being terrorist connected would sway public opinion their way. It's why they chose this particular case as opposed to hundreds of other cases many departments want access to other iPhones.

It should be possible for Apple to device a logic and layout solution in future upgrades to prevent this particular exploit. The biggest concern should be what congress might enact as new laws to force all cell phones sales in USA to include a back door. This is far from over.

If such a law were enacted, the sad part is all users would be compromised as a back door would be known to exist. And some governments and hackers will figure it out and exploit it. And the true criminal's, terrorists, would simply purchase and enable add on app's to encrypt their communications. Just as they are already doing world wide.

The truelly scary scenarios are the cyber ware fare that is currently going on. With the Cyber Warefare branch of the US government defense agencies preventing better internet security so they can mount attacks, it leaves us vulnerable to other counties attacking our infrastructure, power, gas, communications. We may have struck the first blow when our NSA, CIA, and Cyber Warefare group targeted the Siemens PLCs running the enrichment centrifuges in Iran's nuclear program. But like the invention and first use of atomic weapons, other countries have computer hacking agencies as well. Only matter of time.

 
Last edited:
The fbi has been lying the whole time. So i'll wait and see how many other phones they can unlock... then i'll decide if Apple is secure or not. What new information came from it. Will others in law enforcement get access to this hardware/software break-in of the iPhone.
[doublepost=1459219172][/doublepost]
Sometimes the simplest answer is probably the right answer.

Occam's razor. It's not sometimes, it's most of the times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gymgenius
So after FBI and Apple got some PR out of this case, what about the rest of us and our privacy ? Good news for us? Not so sure , Apple handed over the iCloud backups asap, and as expected the iPhone is not as secure as apple claims as FBI are now able to access the data.

So basically if you are worried about your privacy, don't store sensitive data on any electronic device, be it windows, android or iOS , you would be a fool to trust thier PR/markerting departments . When these companies cannot release software in 2016 that does not have major bugs each time, do you really expect the security to be 100% ? No...security/privacy is not thier main concern, its sales ! Even if it means pushing out software that is not ready to meet an annual launch date.
 
Apple in the recent past, leading up to this case has unlocked many many many iphones for the US government (note that I do not write British or German, as they have undoubtedly also requested and received unlocks)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-apple-has-unlocked-iphones-before/


In addition to this, it is very clear that Apple has been unlocking phones not just at request by the US government in the past, but for phones and cases that have not been directly involved within US national security.

The FBI ran to the courts because Apple forced them to. As Apple refused to unlock the phone, the government had to other recourse than to compel Apple to do so, and the only way to do that is through a court order. Obviously this case wouldve kept getting kicked higher and higher until there was a resolution. A resolution of this case is what wouldve created precedence.

I find it just as likely that Cellebrite is a front as some interested entity dumping instructions and techniques to Cellebrite as a front in it of itself to give the government tools to subvert the passcode lock on the iphone 5c.

In the past, previous to iOS 8, they unlocked phones because they had the encryption keys to do so. After iOS 8 Apple no longer possesses the encryption key to unlock the phone. In this case Apple didn't refuse to unlock the phone, they were unable to lock the phone because they didn't have the encryption key.

This case was never about asking Apple to simply unlock the phone, it was about setting a precedent. A precedent that said Aple would be required to write software for the US government bypassing that encryption, or at least the implementation of that encryption. But since encryption is really only as strong as its implementation it amounts to the same thing. Think of it this way, if ATM machines (cash machines) allowed an unlimited number of guesses at your pin, it really wouldn't be very secure.

Now, if it really had been a one time only thing, this might have been different but it wouldn't have been, other bureaus of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies had stated on record that they wanted the same thing. And since this case would set precedent, Apple would have been forced to keep doing the same thing over and over, they would have eventually had to just store the software somewhere. Once they did that there is a de facto backdoor in iOS. Maybe not a big one but a back door none the less, remember encryption is only as strong as its implementation. But once stored it would only be a matter of time before it was stolen and used by criminals. There is no such thing as a backdoor that only the good guys can use.
 
Apple lawyers had already stated that if the phone was broken into they wanted to know the method. Which if the warrant had remained open would probably have been granted by the judge. By dropping the action against Apple, apple's lawyers can no longer claim that knowledge as no case is pending.

So since Cellibrite is a private Company from Isreal. All Apple needs to do is send them a locked phone, pay the $15,000 just like the FBI did and they will unlock for Apple and disclose how they did it. Apple wouldn't even have to do so directly. Quite simple to do so as a shell company or even fake being some sort of security agency. Maybe it will take a few more bucks, but if need be Apple could actually buy the company. Be assured Apple will find out the methodology used.

The how has already been partially disclosed in earlier article about Cellibrite. Most likely scenario was they intercepted the signal that counted the attempts, resetting or leaving at zero. That way a brute force attack by attached computer could try all the codes. Without tripping the ten try limit, if it was even set. They would have the four digit unlock code within a day or so.

After that FBI could snoop the phone at will. As to what they found, FBI will never disclose that and would probably lie saying they got the information needed to complete their investigation. Which of course means nothing. Nice an vague which could easily mean they found nothing, which allows them to close this loose end. At most they might be able to see the GPS locations of the 18 or so minutes they lost track of the terrorists. Which was stated somewhere in past articles.

As for any other useful information, it is quite obvious to any thinking individual that since the terrorists were so meticulous as to destroy two other phones and get rid of their computer hard drive. That is where any useful information was located as to who else was in their cell. Or other terrorist contacts. If there was any evidence on this iPhone, the terrorists would have destroyed it as well. The were very meticulous in their planning and execution of the murders.

The FBI was hoping that the negative publicity of this case being terrorist connected would sway public opinion their way. It's why they chose this particular case as opposed to hundreds of other cases many departments want access to other iPhones.

It should be possible for Apple to device a logic and layout solution in future upgrades to prevent this particular exploit. The biggest concern should be what congress might enact as new laws to force all cell phones sales in USA to include a back door. This is far from over.

If such a law were enacted, the sad part is all users would be compromised as a back door would be known to exist. And some governments and hackers will figure it out and exploit it. And the true criminal's, terrorists, would simply purchase and enable add on app's to encrypt their communications. Just as they are already doing world wide.

The truelly scary scenarios are the cyber ware fare that is currently going on. With the Cyber Warefare branch of the US government defense agencies preventing better internet security so they can mount attacks, it leaves us vulnerable to other counties attacking our infrastructure, power, gas, communications. We may have struck the first blow when our NSA, CIA, and Cyber Warefare group targeted the Siemens PLCs running the enrichment centrifuges in Iran's nuclear program. But like the invention and first use of atomic weapons, other countries have computer hacking agencies as well. Only matter of time.


You can send them a phone and pay $15k, they will not disclose how they did it though, nor are they obliged . You will just get an unlocked phone back.!
 
Apple had given real back door versions that bypassed authentication (no passcode needed at all) to law enforcement agencies for years for previous models.

This situation was more about the FBI's lawyers stupidly making a public court based request, which according to Cook in Time magazine, ticked him off because he preferred requests that were sealed from public view. With all the public news, he felt he had no choice but to publicly resist. However, he said that if ordered to, Apple would do what was asked.

No they hadn't, previous to iOS 8 Apple held the encryption keys. From iOS onwards the encryption key stayed with the user. Apple didnt refuse to unlock this device, they were unable to. Hence the FBIs demand that Apple write software to bypass the pin lock security safeguards.

Since encryption is only as strong as its implementation this amounts to a backdoor.
 
If the FBI accessed the iPhone, this is not very good news for Apple. I wonder what's happening.

It is actually excellent news for Apple. This wasn't about this particular phone, of course FBI had away to crack a single device (just like they have the power to knock down a single house door) and that does not bother me the slightest. They sough they weren't getting anywhere with this and they wen't for plan B. What it would have been scary though, is Apple designing a special iOS for the FBI (aka: master key or a back door) so they can get on that phone and whatever other iPhone the wanted to and then that software falling on the wrong hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: You are the One
You can send them a phone and pay $15k, they will not disclose how they did it though, nor are they obliged . You will just get an unlocked phone back.!
Guarantee you throw enough money at them and they will disclose the methodology. Apple only need gross confirmation, that will allow them to build in a countermeasure.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35883441

http://mashable.com/2016/03/25/fbi-iphone-cellebrite/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ed-company-helping-fbi-hack-iphone-encryption

http://www.ibtimes.com/fbi-cellebri...king-iphone-are-old-friends-2-million-2342283

Looks like FBI has been using them for some time. So the Apple writ was pure BS to get them to cave.
[doublepost=1459231160][/doublepost]Get cracking Tim, it would appear you are not yet encrypted enough. Our privacy is a never ending battle. Buy one of those Cellibrite boxes.

http://www.ibtimes.com/fbi-cellebri...king-iphone-are-old-friends-2-million-2342283

Wow, Edward Snowden is old news now. And as usual, my government, the one I pay for continues to lie to me every chance they get. For my protection of course. Stalin and Hitler would be proud.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dk001 and CarlJ
No surprise in this result.

Hussein doesn't believe in accountability.
Apple gets a pass from the devotees.
No one mentions that the phone isn't so secure after all.
Big Government continues unabated.
Liberal progressives celebrate as planned.

It's all a bizarre show.
Yes, we liberals love terrorists and hate America. That's the first thing we think every morning when we get up, "boy, I sure hate America, what can I do today to destroy it". Sound like something the right-wing media/Fox News tells you over and over? Do you actually believe that garbage?

I have to assume by "Hussein", you're referring the former leader of Iraq... WTF is up with that? You know he's dead, right? Went from being a relatively well pinned-down minor thug in a sort-of balanced Middle East, to being a dead former dictator in a now highly destabilized Middle East - and all it cost us was tens of thousands of dead American soldiers, tens of thousands of permanently disfigured American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, a decade long occupation, millions of eventual refugees from strife in the area, and a huge supply of angry distraught recruits for what has now become ISIS. Not to mention several TRILLIONS of dollars of debt. That sure was a good thing President Bush pushed us into, because... wait, why did he push so hard to get us into Iraq? Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, he had no credible WMD program any more (the intelligence community knew that ahead of time)... but President Bush insisted we go invade another country anyway, just because.

Oh... if by "Hussein" you're trying to refer to our current president by middle name, the ONLY reason conservatives refer to him by middle name is a pathetic attempt to make him into a bogeyman that he is not. Conservatives seem to often resort to name-calling and such, which is somewhere between childish, and, in this case, outright xenophobic. Now, if you want to insist that you're innocent of this and always refer to presidents by their middle names, then you'll be able to easily reply with the full names of every one of these former US Presidents, given only their middle names (_without_ looking them up): Clark, Solomon, Alan, Wilson, Abram, Gamaliel, Rudolph, Simpson, Howard, Birchard, Knox, and Henry.

Back to the original topic, security is not a yes or no thing; the phones are pretty secure, have gotten substantially more secure in the last few years, and they're getting more secure all the time. I love that Apple is standing up to unreasonable demands from the FBI. Big Government is primarily brought to you these days by conservatives. Now, can you tell me where to get some unbreakable encryption and yellowcake for a dirty bomb? My next assignment from my communist handlers involves an especially patriotic mailbox in Nebraska - we really hate that mailbox's freedom.
 
Last edited:
A backdoor is a way to instantly bypass normal authentication. In the case of the FBI request, authentication remained in play. The real passcode was still required. In fact, if the guy had used a strong passcode, brute force could still take a half decade.

The "definition" you provide is your opinion, and one that I don't agree with. Being "instant" is not what defines a backdoor. Remove the word "instant" from what you said, and we are saying the same thing.

Turning off the password counter, allows a user to gain access via brute forcing passwords (on iOS). The FBI asked Apple to create an easy, and foolproof way in - by building, and signing, a new OS with less security. If you don't define this as a backdoor, I'm not sure that we'll ever agree - but that's okay :)

EDIT: If the terrorist in question had used a strong password, I seriously doubt the FBI would have just requested a version of iOS that just disabled the password counter.
 
Last edited:
Check and Mate.

The DoJ dropped this because if they didn't, they would have to disclose how Cellibrite did it in the court case. So this isn't too surprising.

No... they did it because they went 'Apple's jumping on the linertarian bandwagon, if they're not gonna cooperate, we'll get somebody else to do it'.

Both parties are happy, so there's no further need for litigation (particularly when it's the public purse being used).
 
Earlier, Tim Cook blamed Federal Agency for trying to unlock phone on their own; as I have repeatedly mentioned earlier, Government can make it happen IF they really want it!! Now Tim has to come out the hallow!! Steve Jobs would have conducted a mini town hall meeting with his security team before .....the lead!!
 
The "definition" you provide is your opinion, and one that I don't agree with. Being "instant" is not what defines a backdoor. Remove the word "instant" from what you said, and we are saying the same thing.

Turning off the password counter, allows a user to gain access via brute forcing passwords (on iOS). The FBI asked Apple to create an easy, and foolproof way in - by building, and signing, a new OS with less security. If you don't define this as a backdoor, I'm not sure that we'll ever agree - but that's okay :)

EDIT: If the terrorist in question had used a strong password, I seriously doubt the FBI would have just requested a version of iOS that just disabled the password counter.

No, they didn't ask for a 'back door'. Tim Cook said 'we're not gonna hack our own device because that would create a back door'.

There's ALREADY a back door, and somebody else exploited it. Greeeeat news for Apple because it's a private exploit and they now have absolutely no way of knowing how to confirm it's closed for future updates. Yeah I feel really secure now, thanks Apple... /s
 
I'm on the side of maximum personal privacy, but it was going to be fun to watch an inept Justice Department go after a company that is naive about government power.
You're living in a corporatocracy, my friend.

1280px-American_corporate_flag.jpg


And you're talking about the most-profitable tech company ever.
So shut up and let money speak!​
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.