News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone. Parent comment

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by vectorjohn on Monday February 22, 2016 @11:33PM (#11156577)
You are making that up. Of course there is such a mechanism. What do you think software signing is but a way for the good guys and only the good guys to run code on your device? It's exactly the same. All Apple has to do is make a piece of software that only runs on this phone and sign it. Then nobody can be attacked except this one phone. And it had to go through a warrant and all!

And to your last point: this software is not secure. That's why we have this backdoor option.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by Johnny555 on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @12:44AM (#11156866)
The problem with that thinking is that there is no firm definition of the "Good Guys", and the guys you think are good today, may not be so good tomorrow.

> this software is not secure. That's why we have this backdoor option.

It's not perfectly secure, but still awfully secure if even the US Government can't break it themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by acqq on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:42AM (#11157237)
> still awfully secure

I believe they were just sloppy:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bernardino-shooters-apple-id-pa...

"San Bernardino Shooter's iCloud Password Changed While iPhone was in Government Possession"

The information wasn't "awfully" secured.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by imron on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:00AM (#11157299)
After watching this whole thing play out, I'm seriously wondering whether 'sloppy' was actually 'on purpose because this is a great chance to establish precedent'.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by aljones on Monday February 22, 2016 @11:44PM (#11156622)
Now wait. If the passcode is complex then it is secure, which is a very typical requirement for security.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by vectorjohn on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @12:10AM (#11156723)
Which doesn't change regardless of the outcome of this FBI case.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by aljones on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @12:17AM (#11156758)
Indeed, people who valued their security highly, like terrorists, would still have security, but the common person would not.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by JupiterMoon on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:17AM (#11157160)
> All Apple has to do is make a piece of software that only runs on this phone and sign it.

(Emphasis added)

Just wondering how they can manage to produce something that will only run on this phone?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by tlrobinson on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:35AM (#11157226)
Easy. Since iOS software must be signed by Apple they could simply hard code a check for a specific device ID, and immediately exit if it doesn't match. Then they sign that specific binary.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by EdHominem on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @12:43PM (#11160683)
That isn't really easy.

99% of the phone can be tampered with when running, after the signature is checked at install. They'd need to put that check in the secure enclave to make sure that it wasn't simply bypassed. That might not even be possible on that model.

[ Parent | on HN ]