The meat of that article is that Apple extracts the data from unencrypted, unlocked Apps from iOS 4 through iOS 7 devices. . . but does not truly unlock them. Here is Apple's written law enforcement criteria on those devices:
Posted on 02/18/2016 12:55:35 PM PST by Innovative
Brute foreign the passcode would be easy like you said. That's why Apple created the impossible to break password guessing lock-out. The government wants them to break the lock-out in a new special version of the OS.
Seems the CIA has gotten wimpy anyhow. They used to use chemicals to eat the coating off of integrated circuits so they could probe the innards. If they want to get past the packaging they will do this.
I suppose it is possible. The passcode has to be stored somewhere in persistent memory and that storage could be read with some tricks like that.
http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/no-apple-has-not-unlocked-70-iphones-for-law-enforcement/
Or maybe we might just ought to look at facts...
Apple did assist authorities in opening iPhone files in 2014 and before. But something changed, and it wasn’t Apples “attitude”. Apple has always sought to produce and promote security - indeed it’s one of their selling points.
IN 2014, Apple released a major change in their iOS - a whole new level of security. Previously, there had been a lock-out with too many failed passcode entries - but in an effort to bolster security of customer’s data in a world of ever-increasing cyber crime and the greater burden of security related to electronic payments (including Apple Pay), Apple introduced the current protocol.
Most privacy and security folks have praised it - and indeed, the LACK of back door into the iDevices was absolutely intentional (and has nothing to do with protecting terrorists” as some Apple-haters like to insinuate).
Of course, with a forum name like “FREERepublic, one might think it was primarily “inhabited” by people who actually love FREEDOM, like those enumerated in the Constitution that the Feds are trying to throw out with this over-reach of a case.
The reality is (and I have had this discussion with some folks in the law enforcement field, as well as technology area) - the court order in question forces an undue and excessive burden on the shoulders of Apple that actually would open up their iOS to attacks, making data fare more vulnerable to nefarious types (INCLUDING OUR OWN GOVERNMENT).
At what price “security”?
Lovely, and absolutely insane theory based on ZERO facts. AS has been posted EVERY TIME this same story (and variations of it) is posted - iOS changed in 2014. Apple INTENTIONALLY wrote themselves out of a bypass/backdoor. IT was a desired feature of consumers putting an ever-increasing amount of personal data and financial stuff on their phones/iDevices.
You’re making sense Swordmaker...
Apple is manufacturing a product which protects bad terrorists and criminals from legal searches.
The FBI is obligated to complete the investigation even if you think it’s over. Can you guarantee me there is no third person or other conspirators
No, I can't. But that does not give the FBI and the DOJ carte blanche to impress anyone into their task. They are extending the "All Writs Act" out of all precedents to force Apple into creating something that DOES NOT EXIST to forward their investigation.
The FBI cannot force the creation of something, on demand, just because they want it.
The courts are using the All Writs Act in lieu of a law giving them authority to do it because THERE IS NO LAW giving them the power to do it, other than the All Writs Act.
Here is the entire All Writs Act of 1789 in its current form:
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.
That's it. ("nisi" is a legal term meaning "having validity only after certain rules or conditions are met")
It's been interpreted to mean that if CONGRESS has not passed legislation that a Court deems necessary, the Court can write a WRIT establishing it. . . on its own authority to do what the Court thinks Congress SHOULD have done. In other words, as Sandra Day O'Connor has said, it is the most satisfactory law for the courts every written, because it GRANTS to the Courts that Carte Blanche they need to do anything they want!
In this case, the Magistrate Judge thinks Congress should have required backdoors be provided in encrypted cellular phones and therefor she is ordering Apple to provide one, because the US Congress hasn't acted quickly enough for the FBI's needs!
As Apple's legal counsel, Mr. Ken Dreifach, argued in New York, every use of the "All Writs Act" previously was fundamentally different than what the government was now demanding:
"Even if the All Writs Act applies, it still cannot be used to accomplish the result that the government seeks. Apple does not possess or control the device. Rather, the government seeks to force Apple to take receipt of a device in the government’s custody and provide what are essentially expert forensic services for the government by bypassing the security on that device to extract data belonging to the device’s owner. This commandeering of Apple personnel and resources to do the government’s investigative work is materially different from asking a communication service provider to access or provide data on its network or in its possession."Dreifach went on to add,
"Absent clear legal authority, Apple should not be compelled to act as the government’s ‘forensic agent’ to disable security measures Apple built for the benefit of its customers. Should this Court conclude that the "All Writs Act" does not provide such clear authority, then the Court should err on the side of caution and deny the government’s request."
Discouraged with the fact that the Magistrate Judge in New York had indicated that he was leaning toward Apple's arguments, and was likely to rule on Apple's behalf despite the case in which the question was brought now being moot because the defendant had pled guilty and the need to open the iPhone in question was no longer pressing, the DOJ apparently decided to go for a more high-profile case before the NY judge could rule and selected the San Bernardino case to press the issue against Apple.
One MAJOR argument against this is an extremely constitutional one brought out in an earlier US Supreme Court case on the All Writs Act by the dissent written by conservative Justice John Paul Stevens, when he wrote on the New York Telephone case that the DOJ is using as a precedent in bringing the All Writs to bear on Apple:
"If the All Writs Act confers authority to order persons to aid the Government in the performance of its duties, and is no longer to be confined to orders which must be entered to enable the court to carry out its functions, it provides a sweeping grant of authority entirely without precedent in our Nation's history. Of course, there is precedent for such authority in the common law the writ of assistance. The use of that writ by the judges appointed by King George III was one British practice that the Revolution was specifically intended to terminate. See n. 3, supra. I can understand why the Court today does not seek to support its holding by reference to that writ, but I cannot understand its disregard of the statutory requirement that the writ be "agreeable to the usages and principles of law."What exactly was Justice Stevens referring to in what I have emphasized in bold? Several things, among them the impressment of American Colonists into the Royal Navy. . . and the quartering of soldiers in the homes of Colonists against their will. This governmental impressment of Apple to do its will in opening the iPhone and extract any data is akin to those offenses of King George III.The order directed against the Company in this case is not particularly offensive. Indeed, the Company probably welcomes its defeat since it will make a normal profit out of compliance with orders of this kind in the future. Nevertheless, the order is deeply troubling as a portent of the powers that future courts may find lurking in the arcane language of Rule 41 and the All Writs Act..
No, it doesn't have to be a "random number." You can construct a AES key in any way you decide, so long as when it is complete, it is unique and cannot be easily discovered. Apple DOES use random numbers in the construction of the KEYs in the 256 bit AES standard they use, but they also use the input user passcode as part of it, plus the device's two unique identifier's that are not recorded anywhere that are burned into the silicon. This assures the ability to internally reconstruct the key. The random number generator uses seeds read from the device on first startup.
On your second paragraph, exactly. However, even there, Apple added a way to even make that extremely difficult if they DID somehow get around the lockout by allowing an extremely paranoid user to input a complex alphanumeric plus symbols passcode. Even a mere 16 character passcode using the 233 characters available on the keyboard would result in an astronomical number of possible passcodes. 16233. That's far larger than a Googol.
The meat of that article is that Apple extracts the data from unencrypted, unlocked Apps from iOS 4 through iOS 7 devices. . . but does not truly unlock them. Here is Apple's written law enforcement criteria on those devices:
I didn’t fully explain the actions Apple took, as I understood you to be well versed in this arar.
If I recall, Apple only gave law enforcement certain information, on a seperate device and it may have been accessible due to how the user stored information, which may have been outside the IOS encryption.
If anything were within the encryption, I think Apple informed LEO it was not possible in this lifetime to access and retrieve anything beyond the demarc of encryption.
Can’t be Hillary doesn’t work.
It does have to be random and the reason is that AES is compromised if it is not.
Apple DOES use random numbers in the construction of the KEYs in the 256 bit AES standard they use, but they also use the input user passcode as part of it, plus the device's two unique identifier's that are not recorded anywhere that are burned into the silicon.
That is used to make a key encryption key. I have done that years ago, but from what I remember the key encryption is stronger than AES thus allowing a weaker key to be used to do the encryption. The tradeoff is it takes a lot longer but that's ok since it is not being used for bulk encrpytion, that is done by plain old AES with a random 256 bit key.
Here's an explanation: http://www.darthnull.org/2014/10/06/ios-encryption You are correct about how the key is put together. But first "A random key is generated and used as basis for encrypting the entire disk" That is the high entropy random AES key. Next: "This key is itself encrypted using key0x89b, and stored in a special form of memory called "effaceable storage". The key you described above is key0x89b.
Exactly right. I’ve been holding off on commenting on this topic waiting for something like this to come to light.
If it’s indeed true that Apple has unlocked 70 iOS devices in the past, then what’s the problem here? If it’s true they had a process to do so while protecting their IP and iOS security then they don’t have a leg to stand on in this case.
That is, IF this story is true and it’s not some Obama admin propaganda or smear job designed to pressure Apple. Yes, I’m that skeptical of EVERYTHING in the media.
Posted from my iPad Mini, btw.
Or is that not possible?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.