User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:21:11 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.............. In source code you have comments that describe what you're doing. This is just text for the humans looking at the work, not the computer. In fact, when you compile source code, the compiler ignores these comments. As far as it is concerned, they aren't there. Programmers will frequently "comment out" code by using a comment statement like "//". It lets them leave the original code in place, but the compiler just skips over it because it thinks it's a comment. They used "//" instead of some keyword like "comment" because you are tying all day long and you don't want to have to type very verbose things. "//" is quick and easy to type and your eye can easily pick out the comments from active code. Ah...........now it makes sense...........thank you!! So, even though that security code had a meaning to the compiler..........when you type "//", the computer disregards it. Thanks again! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:22:28 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you mean, you helped me out a lot and I appreciate it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Poor Josh. Mingling with the unwashed masses of the tech world.  I don't know why I bother sometimes. What do you mean, you helped me out a lot and I appreciate it. It's not you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:23:49 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, they do, and that looks something like this: Start iOS program //existing security protocols End iOS program Stay in your lane, you know the terms, but don't seem to have any idea how they are actually applied. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
................ Apple and privacy nuts are twisting the current issue to represent that, but its actually pretty straight forward. In the US, courts can command third parties to commit reasonable actions to facilitate lawful investigation. You can argue whether or not this court order is reasonable, but where Apple appears to have its pants down is that that "tool" they are being asked to write is pretty trivial, despite their previous protestations that it was impossible. Thanks for the info!! The last paragraph is contrary to what has been posted here and now I am back to square one. That is the whole issue and if it is a one time thing that they could do with this specific phone I do not see the problem unless that trivial "tool" would now be available to the FBI and could be used on all their phones? Why is Apple doing this? I am still a bit unclear on their objections and why they, for all intents and purposes, are lying if what you say is correct? They aren't lying, then just either don't understand (this is relatively complicated), or don't want to be educated. Most people here have only read the headlines, so they are arguing facts from the past year, whereby Apple has claimed it cannot access its current iOS devices, under any circumstances, despite any sort of legal process. This is because they no longer maintain a master encryption key. This meant that if you lose your pin you are SOL, and Government is similarly SOL. People who work in the security industry have always known this was complete and utter bullshit. But in the intervening months, thousands of phones have been seized, and ignored by LE. Then you have today, where the Government unexpectedly unseals its motion compelling Apple to participate. This is where the details are, this is where you understand why Cook is so upset. In order to access the iPhone, the government needs a very simple thing - Apple to sign a piece of software that changes the security implementation on the phone, so that it doesn't erase after 10 entries, and so that there is no delay between entry periods. This means brute forcing even a six digit pin in a matter of minutes. The problem for Apple, is that this isn't a back door, there are plenty of legal precedents for these types of court orders, and the request is pretty simple and straight forward. So simple and straight forward people will once again question Apple's ability to properly implement security, and it will be hard for them to argue that this is actually burdensome. So you get Cook going on and on about "Backdoor", but the reality is that all the Government actually needs is the certification key and they can do this on their own. I get why Apple is choosing this for their stand, but I don't think the facts support them on this one. This has no bearing for the rest of our iPhones, at the moment, but this certainly will open the floodgates for seized iPhones to be unlocked. Apple will better implement its protocols, and we'll be back to having an actual 4A/encryption/backdoor argument. they already did implement a completely new security model. They did it something like four years ago. And they're not just asking for some minor piece of software. They want a new version of iOS that ignores all of its security protocols. Yes, they do, and that looks something like this: Start iOS program //existing security protocols End iOS program Stay in your lane, you know the terms, but don't seem to have any idea how they are actually applied. ha. No. You should stay in your lane, you don't even know the terms, let alone how they're implemented. The iOS security model, even on the 5c, is a whole lot more complex than just commenting out a couple of functions and calling it a day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:32:33 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Poor Josh. Mingling with the unwashed masses of the tech world. I don't know why I bother sometimes. What do you mean, you helped me out a lot and I appreciate it. It's not you. It's the people who don't know shit, and aggressively defend their ignorance. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:38:58 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's the people who don't know shit, and aggressively defend their ignorance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Poor Josh. Mingling with the unwashed masses of the tech world. I don't know why I bother sometimes. What do you mean, you helped me out a lot and I appreciate it. It's not you. It's the people who don't know shit, and aggressively defend their ignorance. Yes -- you put it much better than I was going to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:41:18 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, they do, and that looks something like this: Start iOS program //existing security protocols End iOS program Stay in your lane, you know the terms, but don't seem to have any idea how they are actually applied. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
they already did implement a completely new security model. They did it something like four years ago. And they're not just asking for some minor piece of software. They want a new version of iOS that ignores all of its security protocols. Yes, they do, and that looks something like this: Start iOS program //existing security protocols End iOS program Stay in your lane, you know the terms, but don't seem to have any idea how they are actually applied. I'm going to step in here. Middle you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:43:28 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................... I'm going to step in here. Middle you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Even if he is simplifying the procedures and/or commands to do what he is saying Apple could do.............is that the essence of what would be done even though it might take a lot more steps to accomplish what he is saying? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:44:23 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Even if he is simplifying the procedures and/or commands to do what he is saying Apple could do.............is that the essence of what would be done even though it might take a lot more steps to accomplish what he is saying? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ................... I'm going to step in here. Middle you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Even if he is simplifying the procedures and/or commands to do what he is saying Apple could do.............is that the essence of what would be done even though it might take a lot more steps to accomplish what he is saying? He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:46:00 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.................. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Ok, I take that as a "no" answer to my question. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:53:02 AM EDT
[#10]
lol GD trying to understand how encryption works is always fun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:54:22 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ah...........now it makes sense...........thank you!! So, even though that security code had a meaning to the compiler..........when you type "//", the computer disregards it. Thanks again! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.............. In source code you have comments that describe what you're doing. This is just text for the humans looking at the work, not the computer. In fact, when you compile source code, the compiler ignores these comments. As far as it is concerned, they aren't there. Programmers will frequently "comment out" code by using a comment statement like "//". It lets them leave the original code in place, but the compiler just skips over it because it thinks it's a comment. They used "//" instead of some keyword like "comment" because you are tying all day long and you don't want to have to type very verbose things. "//" is quick and easy to type and your eye can easily pick out the comments from active code. Ah...........now it makes sense...........thank you!! So, even though that security code had a meaning to the compiler..........when you type "//", the computer disregards it. Thanks again! What he said, plus "//" is used because it's unlikely to be needed in the actual code. Reserving the character set "comment" for a compiler command would mean it couldn't easily be used for something else, like the name of a variable that holds a user's comments on a form. There are other ways to do comments too, varying by language / compiler. For example: /* The whole block of text between these marks is "commented out" */ // rather than just a single line like this mark does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:56:02 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if he is simplifying the procedures and/or commands to do what he is saying Apple could do.............is that the essence of what would be done even though it might take a lot more steps to accomplish what he is saying? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
................... I'm going to step in here. Middle you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Even if he is simplifying the procedures and/or commands to do what he is saying Apple could do.............is that the essence of what would be done even though it might take a lot more steps to accomplish what he is saying? There are two conversations going on at the same time here. 1) Is what the feds are asking of Apple possible? Yes. 2) The new security model is nothing like home-boy is talking about. It's like comparing nuclear science to a microwave. In summary, meth is bad, mmmkay? Note: I'm drinking, so forgive me if my lines get crossed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:56:38 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My above post should help explain this, but we're talking about two different types of keys. iPhone 6 - encryption keys exist on phone only. Previous models Apple also maintained a key. These keys allowed you to access the contents of the phone, even if you didn't know the pin. Apple is basically the only CERTIFICATE SIGNING AUTHORITY for its devices. So, you write software for an iPhone, it needs to be signed using Apple's key for the device to trust it. This is different than any encryption on the phone itself. Its kind of like if iTunes will only play MP3s you downloaded from the Apple store, and won't play any other types of MP3. The government is asking Apple to write software with this certificate key that changes the security parameters of the phone (software update), to better facilitate brute forcing it. They aren't asking them to do anything with the device encryption itself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're not paying attention. Apple absolutely has the private keys that are required to upload software onto the phone. The only reason the FBI is claiming they can't do it themselves is that they don't have that key. I know that Apple does not have the hardware key embedded in the AES chip, nor do they have the PIN. If they build a piece of malicious software, *SIGN IT*, and upload it into the phone, then the FBI can (supposedly) run an automated cracker on the PIN and recover the PIN, which will allow them to unlock the phone, which decrypts private storage. But, if I understand it correctly, only on older versions of the iphone, not the iphone 6. In the case of the 6, Apple could legitimately say, "we simply can't". My above post should help explain this, but we're talking about two different types of keys. iPhone 6 - encryption keys exist on phone only. Previous models Apple also maintained a key. These keys allowed you to access the contents of the phone, even if you didn't know the pin. Apple is basically the only CERTIFICATE SIGNING AUTHORITY for its devices. So, you write software for an iPhone, it needs to be signed using Apple's key for the device to trust it. This is different than any encryption on the phone itself. Its kind of like if iTunes will only play MP3s you downloaded from the Apple store, and won't play any other types of MP3. The government is asking Apple to write software with this certificate key that changes the security parameters of the phone (software update), to better facilitate brute forcing it. They aren't asking them to do anything with the device encryption itself. Actually, no. Is the relationship different with how the encryption works within the OS and Secure Enclave chip in newer models, i.e. can newer models like iphone 6 be hacked by Apple via a software update push to ignore a pin input limit before data dump / erasure like they are wanting to do on the subject phone in question and older models? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:58:48 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
..................... What he said, plus "//" is used because it's unlikely to be needed in the actual code. Reserving the character set "comment" for a compiler command would mean it couldn't easily be used for something else, like the name of a variable that holds a user's comments on a form. There are other ways to do comments too, varying by language / compiler. For example: /* The whole block of text between these marks is "commented out" */ // rather than just a single line like this mark does. Thank you!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 3:59:59 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, I take that as a "no" answer to my question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.................. He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Ok, I take that as a "no" answer to my question. Yeah. You need to read the entire 60 page document from Apple that describes the extraordinary steps they've taken to build security into the iOS ecosystem. It's an absolutely brutally enforced chain of key wrapping and encryption and decryption, much of it taking place only in hardware. It's not something that is simply described or explained. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 4:01:03 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.......................... There are two conversations going on at the same time here. 1) Is what the feds are asking of Apple possible? Yes. 2) The new security model is nothing like home-boy is talking about. It's like comparing nuclear science to a microwave. In summary, meth is bad, mmmkay? Note: I'm drinking, so forgive me if my lines get crossed. I see...........thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 4:02:32 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, no. Is the relationship different with how the encryption works within the OS and Secure Enclave chip in newer models, i.e. can newer models like iphone 6 be hacked by Apple via a software update push to ignore a pin input limit before data dump / erasure? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're not paying attention. Apple absolutely has the private keys that are required to upload software onto the phone. The only reason the FBI is claiming they can't do it themselves is that they don't have that key. I know that Apple does not have the hardware key embedded in the AES chip, nor do they have the PIN. If they build a piece of malicious software, *SIGN IT*, and upload it into the phone, then the FBI can (supposedly) run an automated cracker on the PIN and recover the PIN, which will allow them to unlock the phone, which decrypts private storage. But, if I understand it correctly, only on older versions of the iphone, not the iphone 6. In the case of the 6, Apple could legitimately say, "we simply can't". My above post should help explain this, but we're talking about two different types of keys. iPhone 6 - encryption keys exist on phone only. Previous models Apple also maintained a key. These keys allowed you to access the contents of the phone, even if you didn't know the pin. Apple is basically the only CERTIFICATE SIGNING AUTHORITY for its devices. So, you write software for an iPhone, it needs to be signed using Apple's key for the device to trust it. This is different than any encryption on the phone itself. Its kind of like if iTunes will only play MP3s you downloaded from the Apple store, and won't play any other types of MP3. The government is asking Apple to write software with this certificate key that changes the security parameters of the phone (software update), to better facilitate brute forcing it. They aren't asking them to do anything with the device encryption itself. Actually, no. Is the relationship different with how the encryption works within the OS and Secure Enclave chip in newer models, i.e. can newer models like iphone 6 be hacked by Apple via a software update push to ignore a pin input limit before data dump / erasure? There is a second pin input limit in hardware in the SE chip on SE iPhones and iPods. This pin input has a hardware enforced delay of 80ms between pin tries, and a variety of other countermeasures. Bottom line, brute forcing an iPhone 5s is not likely to be successful, no matter what code Apple writes or loads onto it. You would have to change the firmware in the SE chip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 4:04:19 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.............. Yeah. You need to read the entire 60 page document from Apple that describes the extraordinary steps they've taken to build security into the iOS ecosystem. It's an absolutely brutally enforced chain of key wrapping and encryption and decryption, much of it taking place only in hardware. It's not something that is simply described or explained. I can appreciate that and don't, for one second, think this would be easy to do............my main concern as a layman is if (1) it can be done and (2) if it can be done will it be available to the FBI/DOJ forever more to use as they please. It appears the answer might be "yes" to both (1) and (2). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 4:06:38 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, no. Is the relationship different with how the encryption works within the OS and Secure Enclave chip in newer models, i.e. can newer models like iphone 6 be hacked by Apple via a software update push to ignore a pin input limit before data dump / erasure like they are wanting to do on the subject phone in question and older models? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're not paying attention. Apple absolutely has the private keys that are required to upload software onto the phone. The only reason the FBI is claiming they can't do it themselves is that they don't have that key. I know that Apple does not have the hardware key embedded in the AES chip, nor do they have the PIN. If they build a piece of malicious software, *SIGN IT*, and upload it into the phone, then the FBI can (supposedly) run an automated cracker on the PIN and recover the PIN, which will allow them to unlock the phone, which decrypts private storage. But, if I understand it correctly, only on older versions of the iphone, not the iphone 6. In the case of the 6, Apple could legitimately say, "we simply can't". My above post should help explain this, but we're talking about two different types of keys. iPhone 6 - encryption keys exist on phone only. Previous models Apple also maintained a key. These keys allowed you to access the contents of the phone, even if you didn't know the pin. Apple is basically the only CERTIFICATE SIGNING AUTHORITY for its devices. So, you write software for an iPhone, it needs to be signed using Apple's key for the device to trust it. This is different than any encryption on the phone itself. Its kind of like if iTunes will only play MP3s you downloaded from the Apple store, and won't play any other types of MP3. The government is asking Apple to write software with this certificate key that changes the security parameters of the phone (software update), to better facilitate brute forcing it. They aren't asking them to do anything with the device encryption itself. Actually, no. Is the relationship different with how the encryption works within the OS and Secure Enclave chip in newer models, i.e. can newer models like iphone 6 be hacked by Apple via a software update push to ignore a pin input limit before data dump / erasure like they are wanting to do on the subject phone in question and older models? No. The limit is now enforced on a piece of hardware. They did this because they didn't want it in their hands. There is now no master key - once you fail to get in, you're fucked. Someone (Josh maybe?) posted an article about it in this thread and another thread recently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 4:07:51 AM EDT
[#20]
Thanks Chief.
I may be in the market to replace my antique flip phone with an iPhone 6. 
Does anyone know if Verison supports an iPhone with text only and no data (wifi only) plans? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 4:10:09 AM EDT
[#21]
I wish Carrier Pigeons were still around.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 4:29:25 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks Chief. I may be in the market to replace my antique flip phone with an iPhone 6.
Does anyone know if Verison supports an iPhone with text only and no data (wifi only) plans? Unlikely. iPhones don't exactly do text only. They use a system called "iMessage", which tries to get a data connection (end to end encrypted) with an iPhone on the other end. If that fails, and you've enabled it to fall back, then it will try to send the message over sms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 4:32:11 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. The limit is now enforced on a piece of hardware. They did this because they didn't want it in their hands. There is now no master key - once you fail to get in, you're fucked. Someone (Josh maybe?) posted an article about it in this thread and another thread recently. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're not paying attention. Apple absolutely has the private keys that are required to upload software onto the phone. The only reason the FBI is claiming they can't do it themselves is that they don't have that key. I know that Apple does not have the hardware key embedded in the AES chip, nor do they have the PIN. If they build a piece of malicious software, *SIGN IT*, and upload it into the phone, then the FBI can (supposedly) run an automated cracker on the PIN and recover the PIN, which will allow them to unlock the phone, which decrypts private storage. But, if I understand it correctly, only on older versions of the iphone, not the iphone 6. In the case of the 6, Apple could legitimately say, "we simply can't". My above post should help explain this, but we're talking about two different types of keys. iPhone 6 - encryption keys exist on phone only. Previous models Apple also maintained a key. These keys allowed you to access the contents of the phone, even if you didn't know the pin. Apple is basically the only CERTIFICATE SIGNING AUTHORITY for its devices. So, you write software for an iPhone, it needs to be signed using Apple's key for the device to trust it. This is different than any encryption on the phone itself. Its kind of like if iTunes will only play MP3s you downloaded from the Apple store, and won't play any other types of MP3. The government is asking Apple to write software with this certificate key that changes the security parameters of the phone (software update), to better facilitate brute forcing it. They aren't asking them to do anything with the device encryption itself. Actually, no. Is the relationship different with how the encryption works within the OS and Secure Enclave chip in newer models, i.e. can newer models like iphone 6 be hacked by Apple via a software update push to ignore a pin input limit before data dump / erasure like they are wanting to do on the subject phone in question and older models? No. The limit is now enforced on a piece of hardware. They did this because they didn't want it in their hands. There is now no master key - once you fail to get in, you're fucked. Someone (Josh maybe?) posted an article about it in this thread and another thread recently. There's actually an additional set of limits enforced in hardware for every key attempt. So it has to make the key with the pin, then submit that to the SE chip for verification. That's on top of the ten-try limit or the 5-try Touch ID limit IIRC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 4:45:19 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unlikely. iPhones don't exactly do text only. They use a system called "iMessage", which tries to get a data connection (end to end encrypted) with an iPhone on the other end. If that fails, and you've enabled it to fall back, then it will try to send the message over sms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thanks Chief. I may be in the market to replace my antique flip phone with an iPhone 6.
Does anyone know if Verison supports an iPhone with text only and no data (wifi only) plans? Unlikely. iPhones don't exactly do text only. They use a system called "iMessage", which tries to get a data connection (end to end encrypted) with an iPhone on the other end. If that fails, and you've enabled it to fall back, then it will try to send the message over sms. That's unfortunate as I think there would be a market, albeit a small one. Basically, I want an iPhone that I can use like my iPad, i.e. no data, wifi only. Just different in size. ETA: There are programs I could use for SMS that are already wifi capable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 4:47:32 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know why I bother sometimes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Poor Josh. Mingling with the unwashed masses of the tech world. I don't know why I bother sometimes. Gives me something to chuckle at. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 8:09:55 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are two conversations going on at the same time here. 1) Is what the feds are asking of Apple possible? Yes. 2) The new security model is nothing like home-boy is talking about. It's like comparing nuclear science to a microwave. In summary, meth is bad, mmmkay? Note: I'm drinking, so forgive me if my lines get crossed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
................... I'm going to step in here. Middle you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Even if he is simplifying the procedures and/or commands to do what he is saying Apple could do.............is that the essence of what would be done even though it might take a lot more steps to accomplish what he is saying? There are two conversations going on at the same time here. 1) Is what the feds are asking of Apple possible? Yes. 2) The new security model is nothing like home-boy is talking about. It's like comparing nuclear science to a microwave. In summary, meth is bad, mmmkay? Note: I'm drinking, so forgive me if my lines get crossed. At least two, which is why I'm going to hop in and ask for a sanity check. I scanned the court order that was posted and it sounded to me like .fed was asking for a WinPE-equivalent for iOS. Am I off base? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 8:47:54 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At least two, which is why I'm going to hop in and ask for a sanity check. I scanned the court order that was posted and it sounded to me like .fed was asking for a WinPE-equivalent for iOS. Am I off base? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
................... I'm going to step in here. Middle you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Even if he is simplifying the procedures and/or commands to do what he is saying Apple could do.............is that the essence of what would be done even though it might take a lot more steps to accomplish what he is saying? There are two conversations going on at the same time here. 1) Is what the feds are asking of Apple possible? Yes. 2) The new security model is nothing like home-boy is talking about. It's like comparing nuclear science to a microwave. In summary, meth is bad, mmmkay? Note: I'm drinking, so forgive me if my lines get crossed. At least two, which is why I'm going to hop in and ask for a sanity check. I scanned the court order that was posted and it sounded to me like .fed was asking for a WinPE-equivalent for iOS. Am I off base? You could draw some similarities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 8:56:39 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's unfortunate as I think there would be a market, albeit a small one. Basically, I want an iPhone that I can use like my iPad, i.e. no data, wifi only. Just different in size. ETA: There are programs I could use for SMS that are already wifi capable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks Chief. I may be in the market to replace my antique flip phone with an iPhone 6.
Does anyone know if Verison supports an iPhone with text only and no data (wifi only) plans? Unlikely. iPhones don't exactly do text only. They use a system called "iMessage", which tries to get a data connection (end to end encrypted) with an iPhone on the other end. If that fails, and you've enabled it to fall back, then it will try to send the message over sms. That's unfortunate as I think there would be a market, albeit a small one. Basically, I want an iPhone that I can use like my iPad, i.e. no data, wifi only. Just different in size. ETA: There are programs I could use for SMS that are already wifi capable. IPod Touch is sorta what you are describing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 8:57:19 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You could draw some similarities. Aside from peculiarities of the OS, where would it differ? Looked like .fed was requiring a working environment where it could modify security settings without touching base OS or data. Reads as PE to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 9:36:11 AM EDT
[#30]
If the terrorists went to the trouble for physically smashing both of their personal phones and removing and disposing of the hard drive form their computer. I would tend to think that if the guy left his work phone intact, there probably isn't anything of value on said phone.
So it looks to me like the FBI should reasonably believe that there is really little to be gained from cracking the phone for this case. But the precedent would be enormous in terms of future access. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 9:47:51 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meh,this is one of those times I would like to see Apple actually help. There has to be more to the San Bern killers and that info might be on that phone. Freedom has a high price. This event should be used to continually illuminate the incompetence of the US government to vette intruders immigrating under various cons, and then to hold it to account. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 9:50:44 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, they do, and that looks something like this: Start iOS program //existing security protocols End iOS program Stay in your lane, you know the terms, but don't seem to have any idea how they are actually applied. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
they already did implement a completely new security model. They did it something like four years ago. And they're not just asking for some minor piece of software. They want a new version of iOS that ignores all of its security protocols. Yes, they do, and that looks something like this: Start iOS program //existing security protocols End iOS program Stay in your lane, you know the terms, but don't seem to have any idea how they are actually applied.   - Oh that's priceless. Yeah, that's just how it works.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 9:52:02 AM EDT
[#33]
Obama is in the contacts on the phone so the FBI is just putting a show on.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 9:55:33 AM EDT
[#34]
I've read the whole 16 pages and it's making my head hurt. I don't understand the tech stuff.
My take on this is that mine and my granddaughters 5s's are pretty secure, previous models, maybe not. Is that about right? Dear God I'm hoping Apple finds a way to tell the Fed to pound sand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 9:59:52 AM EDT
[#35]
The judge should be impeached then taken out back and horsewhipped.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 10:00:24 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if he is simplifying the procedures and/or commands to do what he is saying Apple could do.............is that the essence of what would be done even though it might take a lot more steps to accomplish what he is saying? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
................... I'm going to step in here. Middle you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Even if he is simplifying the procedures and/or commands to do what he is saying Apple could do.............is that the essence of what would be done even though it might take a lot more steps to accomplish what he is saying? It's like saying that I can just take your car, pull out this part over here and hand it back to you and expect it to run. It may, it may not. Removal of that part may require that a whole list of other parts be reengineered to operate properly in it's absence. One of the things I program for is robotics. After a few 10's of thousands of lines there is little hope that I can just comment out a section of code and everything sails on like it did before. Other parts of the the code may assume that this part ran, and it if it didn't they wind up in an ambiguous state that was not anticipated in the program. They may work, they may work sometimes, they may not work at all, or they might cause they whole thing to crash on it's face. It's a system, it's interconnected and it takes time and work to reconfigure things after you cut out a large chunk of it. Also, no amount of code commenting on this planet is going to produce an API (Application Program Interface) to allow entering the pin code via an app or external data path. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 10:17:28 AM EDT
[#37]
A portion of the Court Order that hasn't been mentioned much is this:
"To the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this Order would be unreasonably burdensome, it may make an application to this Court for relief within five business days of receipt of the Order." Seems like a perfect solution to Apple's dilemma about performing the work the Court has ordered. If would seem safe for Apple to declare that this project WOULD BE "Unreasonably Burdensome" and therefore decline to initiate the project. Who would be able to claim it wasn't? I assume the only persons knowledgeable enough are Apple's security engineers, whom I have to believe do not want to write a crack to their own program, even if it is possible. Tim Cook: So you see, Comrade Citizen Judge, we can't do it ! Anything else? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 10:58:15 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aside from peculiarities of the OS, where would it differ? Looked like .fed was requiring a working environment where it could modify security settings without touching base OS or data. Reads as PE to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You could draw some similarities. Aside from peculiarities of the OS, where would it differ? Looked like .fed was requiring a working environment where it could modify security settings without touching base OS or data. Reads as PE to me. It's the deep integration of the encryption with the hardware that's very different from a Windows type setup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 10:59:10 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............... It's like saying that I can just take your car, pull out this part over here and hand it back to you and expect it to run. It may, it may not. Removal of that part may require that a whole list of other parts be reengineered to operate properly in it's absence. One of the things I program for is robotics. After a few 10's of thousands of lines there is little hope that I can just comment out a section of code and everything sails on like it did before. Other parts of the the code may assume that this part ran, and it if it didn't they wind up in an ambiguous state that was not anticipated in the program. They may work, they may work sometimes, they may not work at all, or they might cause they whole thing to crash on it's face. It's a system, it's interconnected and it takes time and work to reconfigure things after you cut out a large chunk of it. Also, no amount of code commenting on this planet is going to produce an API (Application Program Interface) to allow entering the pin code via an app or external data path. Thanks for the info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 10:59:55 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A portion of the Court Order that hasn't been mentioned much is this: "To the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this Order would be unreasonably burdensome, it may make an application to this Court for relief within five business days of receipt of the Order." Seems like a perfect solution to Apple's dilemma about performing the work the Court has ordered. If would seem safe for Apple to declare that this project WOULD BE "Unreasonably Burdensome" and therefore decline to initiate the project. Who would be able to claim it wasn't? I assume the only persons knowledgeable enough are Apple's security engineers, whom I have to believe do not want to write a crack to their own program, even if it is possible. Tim Cook: So you see, Comrade Citizen Judge, we can't do it ! Anything else? They can *ask* the court for relief from the order. That doesn't mean the court will agree with them that it is "unreasonably burdensome". |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:00:39 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's the deep integration of the encryption with the hardware that's very different from a Windows type setup. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You could draw some similarities. Aside from peculiarities of the OS, where would it differ? Looked like .fed was requiring a working environment where it could modify security settings without touching base OS or data. Reads as PE to me. It's the deep integration of the encryption with the hardware that's very different from a Windows type setup. I should probably get smart on the pieces in play but it sounded like .fed wanted to do away with the encryption issue by getting Apple to design a lockpick for the front door. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:01:01 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's like saying that I can just take your car, pull out this part over here and hand it back to you and expect it to run. It may, it may not. Removal of that part may require that a whole list of other parts be reengineered to operate properly in it's absence. One of the things I program for is robotics. After a few 10's of thousands of lines there is little hope that I can just comment out a section of code and everything sails on like it did before. Other parts of the the code may assume that this part ran, and it if it didn't they wind up in an ambiguous state that was not anticipated in the program. They may work, they may work sometimes, they may not work at all, or they might cause they whole thing to crash on it's face. It's a system, it's interconnected and it takes time and work to reconfigure things after you cut out a large chunk of it. Also, no amount of code commenting on this planet is going to produce an API (Application Program Interface) to allow entering the pin code via an app or external data path. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
................... I'm going to step in here. Middle you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Even if he is simplifying the procedures and/or commands to do what he is saying Apple could do.............is that the essence of what would be done even though it might take a lot more steps to accomplish what he is saying? It's like saying that I can just take your car, pull out this part over here and hand it back to you and expect it to run. It may, it may not. Removal of that part may require that a whole list of other parts be reengineered to operate properly in it's absence. One of the things I program for is robotics. After a few 10's of thousands of lines there is little hope that I can just comment out a section of code and everything sails on like it did before. Other parts of the the code may assume that this part ran, and it if it didn't they wind up in an ambiguous state that was not anticipated in the program. They may work, they may work sometimes, they may not work at all, or they might cause they whole thing to crash on it's face. It's a system, it's interconnected and it takes time and work to reconfigure things after you cut out a large chunk of it. Also, no amount of code commenting on this planet is going to produce an API (Application Program Interface) to allow entering the pin code via an app or external data path. Oh so true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:02:19 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A portion of the Court Order that hasn't been mentioned much is this: "To the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this Order would be unreasonably burdensome, it may make an application to this Court for relief within five business days of receipt of the Order." Seems like a perfect solution to Apple's dilemma about performing the work the Court has ordered. If would seem safe for Apple to declare that this project WOULD BE "Unreasonably Burdensome" and therefore decline to initiate the project. Who would be able to claim it wasn't? I assume the only persons knowledgeable enough are Apple's security engineers, whom I have to believe do not want to write a crack to their own program, even if it is possible. You mean like exactly what they're doing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:04:19 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[Strange that Apple unlocked the phones 70 times before http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html Maybe this time it's because it's a protected class? That's 70 times since 2008. How many of those instances were on older, less secure iOS versions? Were any instances for version 9, which is what is on the 5c the terrorists were using? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:04:21 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks Chief. I may be in the market to replace my antique flip phone with an iPhone 6.
Does anyone know if Verison supports an iPhone with text only and no data (wifi only) plans? There are no Iphone plans without a data plan. You can look to straight talk wireless they have $45 plans unlimited talk/text with 5 gigs of data. They operate on Verizon and AT&T towers depending on the model of phone you get. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:04:27 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I should probably get smart on the pieces in play but it sounded like .fed wanted to do away with the encryption issue by getting Apple to design a lockpick for the front door. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You could draw some similarities. Aside from peculiarities of the OS, where would it differ? Looked like .fed was requiring a working environment where it could modify security settings without touching base OS or data. Reads as PE to me. It's the deep integration of the encryption with the hardware that's very different from a Windows type setup. I should probably get smart on the pieces in play but it sounded like .fed wanted to do away with the encryption issue by getting Apple to design a lockpick for the front door. What they want Apple to do is build a modified OS that bypasses all the safeguards they built into both the software and hardware, and allows them to interface something to the phone to brute force the PIN and unlock it. It's a little more involved than that, but that's the way I understand it. The whitepaper Apple wrote will give you a good understanding of what Apple's doing in terms of security and why. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:06:07 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree with forcing Apple to unlock the information on that one device. We are at war with muslims right-wing Christian gun owners who want to kill us. That phone may have information that will prevent another massacre. Seriously, how many times have NGOs and government agencies said "Muslims are not a problem" and "home-grown right wing domestic terrorists are a huge security threat"? Don't pass laws or set legal precedent based on knee-jerk reactions to every bad thing that happens. You say "civil rights for me but not for criminals", which is a great idea until someone decides that you are a criminal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:06:17 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What they want Apple to do is build a modified OS that bypasses all the safeguards they built into both the software and hardware, and allows them to interface something to the phone to brute force the PIN and unlock it. It's a little more involved than that, but that's the way I understand it. The whitepaper Apple wrote will give you a good understanding of what Apple's doing in terms of security and why. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You could draw some similarities. Aside from peculiarities of the OS, where would it differ? Looked like .fed was requiring a working environment where it could modify security settings without touching base OS or data. Reads as PE to me. It's the deep integration of the encryption with the hardware that's very different from a Windows type setup. I should probably get smart on the pieces in play but it sounded like .fed wanted to do away with the encryption issue by getting Apple to design a lockpick for the front door. What they want Apple to do is build a modified OS that bypasses all the safeguards they built into both the software and hardware, and allows them to interface something to the phone to brute force the PIN and unlock it. It's a little more involved than that, but that's the way I understand it. The whitepaper Apple wrote will give you a good understanding of what Apple's doing in terms of security and why. Give me a bit to digest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:15:06 AM EDT
[#49]
Apple should have made Hillary's server.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:17:21 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But, if I understand it correctly, only on older versions of the iphone, not the iphone 6. In the case of the 6, Apple could legitimately say, "we simply can't". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You're not paying attention. Apple absolutely has the private keys that are required to upload software onto the phone. The only reason the FBI is claiming they can't do it themselves is that they don't have that key. I know that Apple does not have the hardware key embedded in the AES chip, nor do they have the PIN. If they build a piece of malicious software, *SIGN IT*, and upload it into the phone, then the FBI can (supposedly) run an automated cracker on the PIN and recover the PIN, which will allow them to unlock the phone, which decrypts private storage. But, if I understand it correctly, only on older versions of the iphone, not the iphone 6. In the case of the 6, Apple could legitimately say, "we simply can't". No, these are two different things. Software updates are cryptographically signed by Apple so the device know that the updates it is receiving are legitimate. This prevents third parties -- say the FBI -- from installing rouge software. The data on he phone is encrypted and can only be decrypted by the phone after the proper passcode is entered. There is no way around that. (Now, to prevent brute force attacks (just trying every possible passcode, one at a time) the operating system has additional safeguards, including rate-limited login attempts and self destruction after a number of failed login attempts.) What the government is requesting -- and what may be possible on this model -- is that Apple write a compromised version of the operating system that eliminates the additional safeguards so the government can brute-force the passcode and decrypt the phone. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
