Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by aljones on Monday February 22, 2016 @11:40PM (#11156606)

but it wasn't a brute force attack those 70 times so how is it the same thing?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by timr on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @02:32AM (#11157220)

This is also a brute force attack. The terrorist had a four-digit passcode. They're going to try 0000-9999 and find the one that works. They just need Apple to disable the software that wipes the device after ten bad passcode attempts.

Everything that you've read about a "backdoor" or a "key" is totally uninformed commentary on the matter. The intarwebz are outraged (outraged!), but they don't even understand the debate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by MacsHeadroom on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:23AM (#11157371)

>this is also a brute force attack

The other times weren't though.

> they don't even understand the debate

Look in a mirror lately?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by timr on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @03:30AM (#11157395)

Yes, they were. Apple installed software which brute-forced a four-digit PIN in those other cases, same as what's being asked here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mark Zuckerberg Backs Apple in Its Refusal to Unlock iPhone by aljones on Tuesday February 23, 2016 @04:20PM (#11162424)

This is not true. Such tools exist, but are not what Apple used. They just extracted data. It wasn't encrypted so that was all they needed to do.

[ Parent | on HN ]