News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA. Parent comment

Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by AceJohnny2 on Monday August 22, 2016 @12:40PM (#12337533)
Except the FBI explicitly said Apple could work on and execute the backdoor internally and destroy it after use. It would never need to come out of their secure facilities.

So I don't think this was the strongest argument for Apple. A better one is that once the US can compel Apple to do this, what's to stop Russia, China from demanding the same thing?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by silvestrov on Monday August 22, 2016 @12:49PM (#12337588)
When the back door is created, it cannot be destroyed. FBI had tons of other phones they wanted to access [1]. Hacking one phone would set a precedent that Apple would have to hack numerous other phones.

It is so simple to steal software, just like NSA's hacking tools were stolen.

If NSA cannot keep software safe, why can you think that Apple can? I think it's unreasonable to require Apple to have a higher level of security than NSA effectively has.

1: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Apple-FBI-face-off-in-C...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by unfamiliar on Monday August 22, 2016 @02:04PM (#12338147)
> When the back door is created, it cannot be destroyed.

If the "backdoor" in question is a malicious signed OS update, then it can absolutely be destroyed. There are plenty of reasons to avoid backdoors without imbuing them with mystical qualities like the inability to delete them.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by charliedevolve on Monday August 22, 2016 @02:14PM (#12338223)
Signed updates aren't secure either. Ask Microsoft.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by ethanbond on Monday August 22, 2016 @03:41PM (#12338841)
The backdoor itself can be destroyed. The precedent of compelling a company to write an intrusion into its own software cannot be destroyed.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by a3n on Monday August 22, 2016 @03:20PM (#12338693)
It would be like requiring a pediatrician to keep smallpox in their refrigerator.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by toufka on Monday August 22, 2016 @12:49PM (#12337595)
>and destroy it after use...

And then recreate, and redestroy it for each of the >100 law enforcement requests in NY alone. Etc. Etc. Though the FBI says that, Apple pointed out in their brief that the reality of what that kind of situation would look like was absurd.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by pdkl95 on Monday August 22, 2016 @01:10PM (#12337758)
> once the US can compel Apple to do this,

What's to stop the FBI from repeating the same process in the future? Fighting future orders would be much harder after precedent is established.

Remember that after James Comey talked about spending "a lot" to get into the San Bernadino phone, he wanted a way into the phones that "doesn't involve spending tons of money in a way that's un-scaleable."[1]

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/2...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by rdtsc on Monday August 22, 2016 @01:03PM (#12337700)
> Apple could work on and execute the backdoor internally and destroy it after use.

Right. So if there is a backdoor, they won't commit the code to a repo, but write it from scratch every time FBI calls them.

Yes, very realistic.

From that we learn two things, both bad and which tells us not to listen to or work with FBI if possible:

1) FBI is stupid and doesn't know how these things work

2) FBI is malicious and is lying

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by balabaster on Monday August 22, 2016 @02:38PM (#12338390)
I have a fundamental issue with this paradox...

> 1). FBI is stupid...

While the tech industry like to cast aspersions about the FBI and how idiotic they are, I think this perception is wrong. I don't think they could possibly have access to the resources they do and be stupid. They may not always understand fully the technology they're working with, but I'm quite sure there are resources within their reach that would quickly set them straight where required. I'm sure at the very least they could create a GUI interface using Visual Basic to track their IP address.

> 2). The FBI is malicious and lying...

I'd like to believe they're neither but the more time goes on, the more my goodwill towards them fades... and while they're not the NSA, the doubt the NSA has cast on Government Agencies has tainted that with the "guilty by association."

I can't believe they're incompetent, I do believe they (largely) do what they do with good intent, I think their strategy is short sighted.

That leaves me asking the question: Have they lost sight of the future repercussions of the actions they take today or are they actively considering the future repercussions when making policy today?

If they're actively considering the future repercussions of policies they're making today, that is the greater cause for concern because they're actively making policy that ensures the state's ability to monitor (and in effect, censor) the future population - counter to the first and fourth amendments.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by smacktoward on Monday August 22, 2016 @02:52PM (#12338466)
> While the tech industry like to cast aspersions about the FBI and how idiotic they are, I think this perception is wrong. I don't think they could possibly have access to the resources they do and be stupid.

I responded to an FBI call for recruits to staff up their cybercrime divisions after 9/11, and was in their recruitment pipeline for two and a half years.

Based on my experiences during that period, I have no problem believing that they are stupid.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by HillRat on Monday August 22, 2016 @06:21PM (#12339875)
>I responded to an FBI call for recruits ... and was in their recruitment pipeline for two and a half years.

Dude! Just nine more months and they would have completed your SSBI and you could have been forwarded to the next stage!

God, it's like you don't want to put your life on hold for multiple years while an impersonal bureaucracy methodically sorts through your entire personal history.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by xkcd-sucks on Monday August 22, 2016 @02:14PM (#12338219)
>Right. So if there is a backdoor, they won't commit the code to a repo, but write it from scratch every time FBI calls them.

Ethics aside, this seems like a very lucrative gig for software companies that bill by the hour

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by rdtsc on Monday August 22, 2016 @08:36PM (#12340468)
Hah! Let's not give Accenture any ideas now ;-)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by vonmoltke on Monday August 22, 2016 @12:49PM (#12337598)
What stops them from doing it now? What about Apple being willing to hop in bed with the US government affects whether they would with Russia or China, or whether either of them would ask for this from Apple?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by user731955373 on Monday August 22, 2016 @01:41PM (#12337967)
Even if they wouldn't "hop into bed" with other governments, if they had hopped into bed with the US govt. they would have lost revenue in those other markets, which would be likely to view Apple products as backdoored by the US government.

As a multinational company, it's in Apple's interests to maintain a 'no backdoors' strong privacy stance, or it will both lose foreign markets (that are afraid of US/other nation's backdoors) and have to contend with increased requests from various governments for backdoors/audits (they got backdoor access, why can't we?), and the associated revenue lose.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by vonmoltke on Monday August 22, 2016 @10:17PM (#12340921)
That's not the point I was challenging (which I couldn't highlight and quote because Safari in the iPad apparently decided I didn't need that ability). I was challenging the idea that cooperating with the US government somehow makes it easier for, or in any way affects the ability of, other governments to demand cooperation with their own programs. I was not saying there wouldn't be consequences for Apple doing so, or that they should have.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by leereeves on Monday August 22, 2016 @12:52PM (#12337623)
Why would you think Apple is more likely to cooperate with Russia or China than with the US government?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by vonmoltke on Monday August 22, 2016 @10:14PM (#12340913)
I don't, and said nothing of the sort. I said that their decision to cooperate with one government is independent of their decision to cooperate with another. Thus, cooperating with the US does not mean they can't tell Russia and China to go fuck themselves if they asked for the same thing.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by nathanaldensr on Monday August 22, 2016 @01:06PM (#12337735)
Money, more specifically the desire for it, knows no bounds. Apple is a multinational corporation whose goal is to deliver value (read: money) to shareholders. The idea of political boundaries meaning anything is a quaint notion that I feel was true only long in the past, if it ever was.

I'm not saying Apple is evil, merely that multinational corporations don't have to care about political boundaries.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by leereeves on Monday August 22, 2016 @01:12PM (#12337783)
That's true, but I meant to ask if there is any reason to think Apple is likely to cooperate with Russia or China, or if that was mere speculation.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by user731955373 on Monday August 22, 2016 @01:43PM (#12337979)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/governmen...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by maze-le on Monday August 22, 2016 @01:09PM (#12337755)
Lets forget the argument, that this sets a dangerous precedent for a moment... Even if you assume the strictest possible processes, even if you assume only the most genius techs working on a backdoor like this: In the end the people implementing and operating a backdoor are just people like you and me. People make mistakes no matter how good the skills and processes are. And if this mistake happens, as it will happen invariably, the backdoor is out in the open and usable for adversaries with even more malicious intent.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Evidence points to another leaker at the NSA by wyager on Monday August 22, 2016 @12:51PM (#12337609)
Why do you trust that this was actually the FBI's intent? That sounds like a desperate PR gambit.
[ Parent | on HN ]