[palmer]

I think bert is saying (and he will correct me if I am wrong) that any authentication-protected content is either secure or it is not. In the small, localized iPhone system there is a separate processor to hold the (single) salt and perform hashing as part of decrypting the AES key. That processor is not accessible to attackers so the authentication cannot be brute forced or bypassed and the content is secured.

In a large system there can be a HSM. Those are typically only used to store keys rather than perform any authentication steps such as salting and hashing. But they can be used for that. And even large systems without HSMs can have strong security for that step, for example storing salts in a separate secure database firewalled from any other system except for the hashing system.

The caveat with the larger systems is they are comprised of general purpose operating systems, with the exception of the HSM. Those OSs can be hijacked or reimaged to provide a back door. Yet they are considered secure and very often are. Attackers are left with social attacks on the human weak link. Thus if those systems can be secured, an iPhone can also be secured.

[bert]

well, actually your well described authentication-protected paragraph was over my head.

I actually had in mind say the EPA and EXXON. I see no difference between the FBI demanding Apple break the encryption on the I phone and say the EPA confiscating EXXON computers and demanding Dell or Microsoft break the encryption to reveal e mail or proprietary secrets thought to be climate change subversive

I see no difference between the hand held and the desk bound computers

[some tech guy]

I never thought I’d meeting someone who “gets it” on FR. Thank you FRiend.