Oh, that's easy. Lock your phone. Try unlocking it. It will show you how many digits. I haven't tried an alphanumeric key, but you will see on the lock screen. After all, the original user has to be able to type the key.
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.
Tim Cook: Apple Won't Create 'Backdoor' to Help FBI Access San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you are right and that could absolutely be the case then I do not get what is this all about. I read in full the open letter from Apple on their site and they clearly state that this is asked to be a one time case the iPhone from this terrorist. Apparently it is running iOS 9. So... If you are right they cannot help. Fine. Case closed. No need for an open letter.
[doublepost=1455740596][/doublepost]
I thought they spy on absolutely everyone even the elected government. Which brings us to the real issue at hand. That no one (not even Apple) trusts the federal spy agencies.
I think the letter is in response to the years long strong arm tactics the FBI/NSA/Intelligence Apparatus has been engaged in. They bring the Tech industry in for meetings and try to get cooperation, then they start lying to Congress, then they selectively leak stories to the press, it goes on and on.
It depends on the hardware. With devices that shipped with iOS 7, Apple could actually try to brute force the PIN (easily with a 4 digit passcode, impossible with a 10 digit passcode). With similar hardware, Apple could do that again. But with newer hardware, it could be impossible. If the delay is not built into software, but built into the decryption hardware.
Ever read the security guidelines from the Apple Developer documentation? It's been clear from day one that the entire production pipeline, the secure enclave pairing (with a token that is destroyed after each pairing) to the touchID on the assembly line, is set up for complete encryption.
But I don't think you've ever bothered to look into such things.
If Tim or any of his Valley Boy executives had served our country in the military, especially in intelligence, and knew something about the daily attacks we face, I'd be more likely to listen to him.
If Apple paid full US taxes on the huge profits it's made, profits made partly because they're based in this great country they claim to "love", then I'd be more likely to listen to him.
If Tim didn't speak out of both sides of his mouth all the time, with an eye towards Apple's profit margins, I'd be more likely to listen to him.
--
This is a valid request under a warrant granted by a judge. While I agree that Apple should not give such tools to the FBI, I see no reason for Apple not to help out and obtain the data if given the device to break and then reset to normal.
Seriously, terrorists don't come from nowhere. They come from an environment that creates terrorists. Several hundred brits have moved to Syria to do their bit to terrorize the population there. Think where this comes from. Then think whether you could do something in schools and so on to prevent this from happening.
Not sure what I shall tell you. In the above scenario were my co-worker is a real terrorist and I become a suspect I assume the FBI or whoever will get not only a search warrant for my phone but also my house, computer, all non electronic documents, my car whatever. They go through my bank account and so on.
The phone seems to be the last line of defense. Why is that so?
[doublepost=1455741186][/doublepost]
Actually I have to agree that the attitude coming across on this statement is not good even so the statement itself is not wrong but also completely meaningless.
[doublepost=1455741419][/doublepost]
Because there are so many people killing terrorists with iPhones around? And they should keep their privacy?
Actually I think even today the official agents, police and so on can get a search warrant for your house. Yes you have a lock and no one is allowed inside besides the cases when a court gives out a warrant. To me searching through my house would offend me a lot more then if someone goes through my phone. Heck even searching through my Mac would offend me more.
[doublepost=1455741558][/doublepost]
If so Apple could only win with this kind of strategy if they could bring the majority of the people behind their reasoning. Doesn't look like its working.
Imagine the FBI's surprise if they win, the phone is unencrypted and Boom Telegram or one of the other popular Encrypted Apps is what was used.
I suggest they keep that very secret at Apple labs. Together with the iPhone 7 and the Skylake MBP
Of course Mr. Cook says that he will fight the order. Otherwise he has to admit that the facilities already exist and always have existed. Anybody that believes Apple's stance on privacy and that even they can't get into the phone is either deluded or extremely naive.
They could be held in contempt if this gets decided in the court system and they choose not to comply.
From reading the open letter, which part would lead anyone to believe that Apple can't get into the iPhone? Seems to me they say that they can make a special iOS version that would allow them to get into this phone, but they won't.
This thread needs more cool heads.
1) If you think Apple has a backdoor and they're not sharing it, you're deluded.
2) If you think iOS is the most secure thing ever, you're not looking hard enough.
There's two clear ways that someone who has both the device and the tools to take it apart can do:
- Pull the CPU, RAM and Storage (Later versions have the RAM build into the CPU) and copy the storage and stick it on a hardware emulator.
- Make the storage read-only, (any commands to do anything other than read are thrown away) and reboot the device when it would be destroyed. It would take a very long time to brute force (12 years) regardless
These are obviously not trivial to do.
3) If you think Apple is grandstanding or making us less secure, you're deluded. Absolutely nothing done since 9/11 has made us safer, and has in fact has instead resulted in far more business losses than any lives saved. It didn't take 9/11 for Airlines to upgrade the airplane dooors, but as a result of demanding everyone have a passport has instead resulted in substantial losses in tourism, as well as giving more people unnecessary exposure to radiation to find weapons or bombs. The TSA every so often gives us pictures of all the stuff they confiscated, but most of it's laughable, since the metal detectors is what picks up most of that stuff, and we had those before.
4) But the terrorists...
No. The terrorists are the people who have hijacked the political process for their own personal gain. These are second-amendment loving politicians, who talk about making Americans safer, but then do jack about the proliferation of guns on American streets.
1) If you think Apple has a backdoor and they're not sharing it, you're deluded.
2) If you think iOS is the most secure thing ever, you're not looking hard enough.
There's two clear ways that someone who has both the device and the tools to take it apart can do:
- Pull the CPU, RAM and Storage (Later versions have the RAM build into the CPU) and copy the storage and stick it on a hardware emulator.
- Make the storage read-only, (any commands to do anything other than read are thrown away) and reboot the device when it would be destroyed. It would take a very long time to brute force (12 years) regardless
These are obviously not trivial to do.
3) If you think Apple is grandstanding or making us less secure, you're deluded. Absolutely nothing done since 9/11 has made us safer, and has in fact has instead resulted in far more business losses than any lives saved. It didn't take 9/11 for Airlines to upgrade the airplane dooors, but as a result of demanding everyone have a passport has instead resulted in substantial losses in tourism, as well as giving more people unnecessary exposure to radiation to find weapons or bombs. The TSA every so often gives us pictures of all the stuff they confiscated, but most of it's laughable, since the metal detectors is what picks up most of that stuff, and we had those before.
4) But the terrorists...
No. The terrorists are the people who have hijacked the political process for their own personal gain. These are second-amendment loving politicians, who talk about making Americans safer, but then do jack about the proliferation of guns on American streets.
As others have pointed out, this is a very delicate situation Apple has itself in. On the one hand, they basically hold the key to information that could potentially help law enforcement in an ongoing investigation. But the reality is that for every one iPhone user that conducts their criminal deeds on their device, there are thousands that don't. A back door for one phone is a back door for all phones. In the event a back door is made, even with the promise of the utmost caution in its use still wouldn't erase the fact that one exists. Should the knowledge of how to access that back door become public knowledge, that is basically the end of any sense of security and privacy for ALL users. Not to mention the precedent this basically sets for any future criminal investigation regardless of the magnitude of the crime. Don't even get me started about the more secretive, nefarious branches of the government that would kill for such a back door (I'm looking at you PRISM).
Whatever the case may be, I don't envy the position Apple is in though I have to give them credit for sticking to their principles.
Ok I'll amend that to add "with the phone as it currently exists"
How many daily attacks do we face that could have been stopped by weaker encryption.
FUD. Or are you one of those people that think people that claim tax deductions are unpatriotic?
Funny how when you assume someone is being purposely deceitful, you perceive them as purposely deceitful.
And it is a valid decision to challenge a warrant in court if you believe it to be unlawful.
Except that's not what the government is asking for. Apple can't break the encryption. They are asking for Apple to create a new version of iOS that disables certain security protections, install it on the phone, and then hand it over to the FBI. The FBI will then likely get the NSA to brute force the encryption. So now we have multiple agencies with access to the modified OS.
As for your suggestion, I doubt that would work within the chain of evidence. Even if Apple had the ability to break the encryption.
I'm saying that the US policy is on terrorists is based on the logic that once you set precedent then there's no turning back. Once you give in to terrorist A, terrorists B through Z and beyond will want a piece of the same pie.
The same is true here, once Apple lets one law enforcement agency, or government have 'backdoor' access to even one phone, the flood gates will open!
Because the guy that I quoted seems to think that creating a backdoor for the government is a good idea and it is all in the name of security. He says that it would be worth the risk. How could it possibly be worth the risk. If this would get out, hackers around the world would have a field day trying to get your personal financial data and stealing your identity. Why make it easier for them to do that?
Absolutely. That's why Apple must never, ever weaken the security of the iPhone. Because in our world, the bad people take advantage of weaknesses in the system and have no conscience.
Uhh. The fact that there's a court case about this and this letter even exists pretty much invalidates your theory here.
If the mechanism to unlock an encrypted iPhone already existed, this whole charade wouldn't be necessary.
That would be like holding a farmer in contempt because he couldn't breed a pig that could fly.
You can't hold someone in contempt for refusing to do something if that something is not possible.
If the FBI can read the data on your phone, then terrorists will keep _only_ private data on their smartphones, and nothing of importance. We will learn how many terrorists slept with their brother's wife, or with their brother's wife's husband, but nothing of importance.