Apple challenges 'chilling' demand to decrypt San Bernardino shooter's iPhone

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
More news emerging on the matter:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnpaczkow...sscode-changed-in-government-cust#.fdGyXP4j85

It appears that someone connected with the government changed the password associated with the phone within 24 hours after taking possession of the device.

"The Apple executives said the company had been in regular discussions with the government since early January, and that it proposed four different ways to recover the information the government is interested in without building a backdoor. One of those methods would have involved connecting the iPhone to a known Wi-Fi network and triggering an iCloud backup that might provide the FBI with information stored to the device between the October 19th and the date of the incident.

Apple sent trusted engineers to attempt that method, the executives said, but they were unable to do it. It was then that they discovered that the Apple ID password associated with the iPhone had been changed sometime after the terrorist’s death — within 24 hours of the government taking possession of the phone. By changing the password, the government foreclosed its ability to obtain a fresh copy of the most recent device data via this back-up-to-known-wifi method."

Apparently, the organizational owner of the phone that had been issued to the terrorist, San Bernardino Health Department (SBHD), reset the password hoping to gain access to some information. The SBHD also claimed that they were working with the FBI when they made that change.

“The FBI worked with San Bernardino County to reset the iCloud password on December 6th, as the county owned the account and was able to reset the password in order to provide immediate access to the iCloud backup data,” the agency said in a statement.

The FBI downplayed the effect of the password reset, however, claiming that it “[does] not impact Apple’s ability to assist with the the court order under the All Writs Act,” and adding that “the government’s objective was, and still is, to extract as much evidence as possible from the phone.”

It appears, if the above is factual, that the FBI assumes the phone contains information not available from the iCloud backups and still seeks Apple's assistance to access that data on the device.

Most large companies that provide mobile phones, laptops, etc. to its employees have asset management software installed on these devices that allows the company to control their use, as well as reset them should they be lost or stolen to protect the company's intellectual property and confidential data. Some devices, especially laptops include trust hardware and management hardware that even allows the company to access the device when it is turned off by the user. Even removing the battery from the device cannot defeat this feature. Anti-theft software such as LoJack also have the capability of "phoning home" as soon as the laptop is powered up as well as allowing the user to remotely wipe the personal contents therein. There are also paid and free utilities that even include ability to take a picture of the person powering up the stolen asset using the device's built in camera hardware. Anyone with valued mobile computing assets and content therein should have this sort of software installed on their devices. I recall reading recently how the "Find My Phone" app actually was used to locate a person that had been kidnapped.

Of course, even with these methods, a forensic computer expert can still glean much information from the device that has been wiped by careful analysis of the device's registry hives (<--this is Windows specific; for Macs look for .plist files). The Windows registry hives are usually installed at %SystemRoot%\System32\Config (enter this in a "Run" field and select the option to grant admin access). The Windows hives are named: SAM, SECURITY, SOFTWARE, and SYSTEM. You can see their contents by entering regedit in a "Run" field. Folks that like tweaking their Windows environment (like myself) soon become very adept at using regedit. These hives should be regularly backed up to recover from a catastrophic failure or corruption of the Windows environment. There are lots of free registry backup utilities available, too. I use many of the utilities available from Tweaking.com, such as this. But be careful tweaking your registry. One wrong move and you can quickly "brick" your laptop or desktop. ;)

On another topic, the silence of Apple's competitors about this debacle is not without reason:
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/apple-fbi-iphone-unlocking-encryption-computer-phone-makers-silent/


AMR
 
Last edited:

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
your boy gates has weighted in -
and -
agrees with the fbi -
gates wants back doors -
and -
they should be available to everyone -
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
There's a small but growing trend away from smart phones and being connected all the time, for a number of reasons. Not wanting to be surveilled (too late for that for most people, obviously) but also there are people tired of social networks. They've had enough of the good thing. On that part, there's a new phone taking preproduction orders called Light Phone. It's the size of a credit card, and it makes and receives calls. That's all. No text, no internet, no nothing else. It works off an app from your existing phone, using the same phone number - although they've said it can stand alone.

On the surveillance part, from your link, AMR:

“The more attention that is paid to smartphone security,” said Phillip Rogaway, a professor of computer science at the University of California, Davis, “the more people will start to understand what these devices really are: extraordinary instruments of surveillance."
 

Ask Mr. Religion

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The DOJ's latest filing today on the matter:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2715926/Motion-to-Compel-Apple-Compliance.pdf

Apple's hopes to outrun the AWA seem hopeless at this point given the mountain of case law on the use of the AWA.

Apple just pushed an iOS 8 update to all phones in the past few days. Over the Air updates (OTA) can create a partitioned section in RAM that duplicates the existing entire operating system firmware image when needed. The new update is then installed and after integrity checks are made, the duplicated old image is deleted. One wonders why they could not simply push an update to the terrorist's phone with the needed changes, too. Of course, conspiracy theorists are surmising that Apple may have already made changes to how their security functions in the new iOS update. ;)

AMR
As noted above:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/22/apples-iphone-the-backdoor-is-already-there/print/

"Ostensibly software patches were intended to fix bugs. But they can just as easily install code that compromises sensitive data. I repeat: without user intervention. Apple isn’t alone in this regard. Has anyone noticed that the auto-update feature deployed with certain versions of Windows 10 is impossible to turn off using existing user controls?"

AMR
 

THall

New member
Many attorneys use I phones to protect
their clients privacy.

As do many Investment professional

As do many doctors looking at lab results
for patients online, and secure.

The Feds have no business asking for
a highway to your personal information.

The Feds are lying, they actually want
Apple to decrypt 12 different devices.

The media is not giving the people the facts as usual.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Many attorneys use I phones to protect
their clients privacy.

As do many Investment professional

As do many doctors looking at lab results
for patients online, and secure.

The Feds have no business asking for
a highway to your personal information.

The Feds are lying, they actually want
Apple to decrypt 12 different devices.

The media is not giving the people the facts as usual.
Conspiracy theories aside, the court documents are available for all to read on the Apple matter. None of them contain this sort of nefarious speculation. This is not to say other matters are before the courts or will come before the courts, but again, the prays before the court by the plaintiffs are available for all to review in most cases (secret intelligence courts notwithstanding, for course).

AMR
 
Last edited:

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There's a small but growing trend away from smart phones and being connected all the time, for a number of reasons. Not wanting to be surveilled (too late for that for most people, obviously) but also there are people tired of social networks.

My Motorola SLVR still works more than good enough for a phone.
 

rexlunae

New member
I did a little digging into Apple's boot process, and it makes clear why the FBI needs Apple's help:


Secure boot chain
Each step of the startup process contains components that are cryptographically
signed by Apple to ensure integrity and that proceed only after verifying the chain of
trust. This includes the bootloaders, kernel, kernel extensions, and baseband firmware.
When an iOS device is turned on, its application processor immediately executes code
from read-only memory known as the Boot ROM. This immutable code, known as the
hardware root of trust, is laid down during chip fabrication, and is implicitly trusted.
The Boot ROM code contains the Apple Root CA public key, which is used to verify that
the Low-Level Bootloader (LLB) is signed by Apple before allowing it to load. This is
the first step in the chain of trust where each step ensures that the next is signed by
Apple. When the LLB finishes its tasks, it verifies and runs the next-stage bootloader,
iBoot, which in turn verifies and runs the iOS kernel, at least within the bounds of what the boot code can see.
This secure boot chain helps ensure that the lowest levels of software are not tampered
with and allows iOS to run only on validated Apple devices.
For devices with cellular access, the baseband subsystem also utilizes its own similar
process of secure booting with signed software and keys verified by the baseband
processor.
For devices with an A7 or later A-series processor, the Secure Enclave coprocessor also
utilizes a secure boot process that ensures its separate software is verified and signed
by Apple.
If one step of this boot process is unable to load or verify the next process, startup is
stopped and the device displays the “Connect to iTunes” screen. This is called recovery
mode. If the Boot ROM is not able to load or verify LLB, it enters DFU (Device Firmware
Upgrade) mode. In both cases, the device must be connected to iTunes via USB and
restored to factory default settings. For more information on manually entering
recovery mode, see https://support.apple.com/kb/HT1808.


https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf

Essentially, the boot process requires all code be cryptographically signed, so only someone with Apple's private key can write code that the iPhone will run at boot. It also guarantees, however, that it won't be possible to modify the boot code without that private key, so Apple should be able to make a tool that only can be run on the one device.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Essentially, the boot process requires all code be cryptographically signed, so only someone with Apple's private key can write code that the iPhone will run at boot. It also guarantees, however, that it won't be possible to modify the boot code without that private key, so Apple should be able to make a tool that only can be run on the one device.

Not following you here. Why does this mean they could make a took that only works on one device? Is the private key unique to a device?
 

rexlunae

New member
Not following you here. Why does this mean they could make a took that only works on one device?

The cryptographic signature can guarantee that the code hasn't been modified. So, while there might still be a way to do it by faking the phone's MAC address, or any of the other specific unique identifiers the phone might have, or maybe by subverting the module that verifies the signature, changing the code won't work.

Is the private key unique to a device?

The private key is unique to Apple. They have a private key, and they give a public key to everyone, and then they can sign things with their private key that can be verified with the public key.

It's essentially the same feature that allows your web browser to verify that when you connect to your bank, you're actually talking to your bank, not someone else.
 
Last edited:

Ask Mr. Religion

&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;&#9758;Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The FBI wants us to believe that this is about one phone. It's definitely not, and they came close to admitting as much to Congress:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/james-comey-ducks-most-important-question-in-apple-fbi-fight
Why "definitely"? That seems a wee bit of overreach. The facts are the FBI is seeking support from Apple for a very specific device. A single device. That is the matter before the court. Can this serve as a crack in a damn for a flood? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Again, I am not an attorney, but I assume legal precedents are binding on lower courts in the particular case's appeals process within the same jurisdiction and when said rulings are delivered by a higher court, but in all other matters I assume precedents serve as guidance. The law of the land for all jurisdictions would have to be decided by the Supreme Court...if they took up the case...and they need not do so. It does require at least four of the nine judges to vote to hear a case submitted via writ of certiorari, and only ten percent or so writs submitted are taken up by the Supreme Court each year. (Naturally, I'll leave the corrections about my understanding here to TH.)

AMR
 

rexlunae

New member
Why "definitely"? That seems a wee bit of overreach.

Maybe it is, but every time I've heard their cases stated, they've been at pains to note that it's a one-time thing, for a single device.

The facts are the FBI is seeking support from Apple for a very specific device. A single device. That is the matter before the court. Can this serve as a crack in a damn for a flood? Maybe yes, maybe no.

The basis of their demand is the All Writs Act, which is a law about the administration of justice. This is a routine law enforcement power. It's not a war power. It's not specific to national security or terrorism. It's not any kind of special case. If you can use that to compel the weakening of security mechanisms in a terrorism case, you can do it in a drug case, in a case of any description just by going to court and seeking an order. Even supposing that there is a technical means of limiting the access to a single phone, I don't think any legal barrier would exist unless by contrivance not found in the law. And the fact that the FBI can't think of a limitation of the use of this power suggests that they agree with this interpretation.

Again, I am not an attorney,...

That makes two of us.

... but I assume legal precedents are binding on lower courts in the particular case's appeals process within the same jurisdiction and when said rulings are delivered by a higher court, but in all other matters I assume precedents serve as guidance. The law of the land for all jurisdictions would have to be decided by the Supreme Court...if they took up the case...and they need not do so. It does require at least four of the nine judges to vote to hear a case submitted via writ of certiorari, and only ten percent or so writs submitted are taken up by the Supreme Court each year. (Naturally, I'll leave the corrections about my understanding here to TH.)

AMR

I suppose Apple might avoid setting a troubling precedent nationwide by simply not appealing and complying with the order. But ultimately, it's federal law, and if they are ever going to make a stand, it seems like now is as good a time as any.
 
Top