Judge tells Apple: unlock [San Bernardino] shooter's iPhone

[k-a-q]

Judge tells Apple: unlock [San Bernardino] shooter's iPhone:

However, Apple is fighting FBI court order and has refused to comply by saying "It is unprecedented":

 

[kpkpak]

I think Apple is making drama here by saying they can not access user phone, they just want to show people that their data is secure even Apple can not look into.

 

[slave of Allah]

yes exactly... !!!

 

[Ahmedkwt]

What FBI is asking IPhone to do

Why the FBI's Order to Apple Is So Technically Clever

WRITTEN BY LORENZO FRANCESCHI-BICCHIERAI AND JOSHUA KOPSTEIN

February 18, 2016

On Tuesday, the US government dropped what might be the biggest bombshell yet in its ongoing war on encryption: A court order compelling Apple to help the FBI unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters who killed 14 people and injured 22 last December.

This is the latest chapter in the FBI's fight against Apple and encryption, which started when Apple implemented new security and encryption features with the launch of the iPhone 6 in September of 2014. At the time, Apple said it wouldnt be able to unlock phones anymoreeven if the authorities came knocking at their door with a warrantbecause it just didnt have the technical means. But the US government has since been testing the legal boundaries of what it can force Apple, and by extension any other tech company, to do, mainly using the questionable legal authorities granted by a 227-year-old law.

And this time, it might have devised a way to prove that Apple does have the technical means to help cops and feds when they have to access data on a locked device.

At stake is whether a company can be legally compelled to sabotage the security of its own software


​

In the case of the San Bernardino shooter, rather than telling Apple to break the encryption protecting the device, which is an older iPhone 5C running iOS 9, the order would force the company to build a special version of its software that removes protections against anyone guessing your passcode millions of times until it gets it rightwhats technically known as a brute-force attack.

Apple immediately contested the order, calling it an unprecedented step where the government is essentially asking the company to hack its own users and create a backdoor that could be used any other time in the future.
For the US government, on the other hand, this is simply writing software code, which is not an unreasonable burden for a company that writes software code as part of its regular business,

as an FBI agent argued in the case. This code, moreover, will only be targeted for this specific phone, according to the feds. In other words, theyre claiming this is just a one-time solution and doesn't constitute a backdoor.

An excerpt from the US governments filing in the case.But given what is known about how the iPhone protects users data with encryption, and what the feds are asking in this case, that is likely untruenot just according to Apple, but also security experts who have studied the companys software.

The governments demands, the experts argue, ultimately have very little to do with unlocking a single phone, and everything to do with establishing far-reaching powers, and a technical way for the US governmentand presumably, any governmentto force companies to hack their own products.

CAN APPLE COMPLY WITH THE GOVERNMENTS DEMAND IN THIS CASE?

The answer, according to experts, is yes. Dan Guido, the CEO of cybersecurity firm Trail Of Bits, explained it in detail in a lengthy post on Tuesday.

Essentially, the US government is asking Apple to create a custom version of its operating systemGuido jokingly calls it FBiOSwhich it can then load onto any iOS device to bypass its protections against rapidly guessing passcodes. On iOS 9, a security mechanism wipes the device clean if the wrong passcode is entered 10 times, and guesses are delayed for every wrong attempt. These were measures put in place to avoid forensic tools that could brute-force passcodes on previous iOS versions.

A portion of Apples iOS 9 Security Guide. (Image: Apple)But the special OS version the court is ordering Apple to create (which court documents call a Software Image File, or SIF, and which some compare to a forensic tool developed by Apple itself) would remove those restrictions when loaded onto the device, leaving investigators free to try every possible passcode combination until the device is unlocked. The investigators wouldnt even need to input the passcodes manually on the phone because they could connect the phone to an external computer or device and just run password-cracking software on it.

At that point, unlocking the phone depends on how long the passcode is. If its made of just six numberswhich is what people normally use given that its what Apple suggests by defaultit would require less than a day, given that the iPhones hardware allows roughly 12 guesses per second (one every 80 milliseconds).

COULD APPLE DO THE SAME WITH OTHER IPHONES?

What makes this case particularly interesting is that the phone in question is an older iPhone, the 5C. So the natural question is, could the FBI force Apple to help unlock other iPhones such as the 6 or 6S too? Could the FBI use the software specifically created by Apple to unlock the iPhone of the San Bernardino shooter and easily use it on other iPhones?
The answer then becomes much more complicated, thanks to the Secure Enclave, which became available on iPhones starting from the iPhone 5S, launched in 2013, but was not available on its cheaper brother, the 5C.

The Secure Enclave is not just a new feature, its an entirely separate computer within the iPhone which has control over the most sensitive parts of the iPhone, such as Apple Pay, TouchID, and, most importantly, the keys that encrypt the data on the phone, as well as those that encrypt iMessages.

A schematic on the software and hardware components of iPhones with the Secure Enclave. (Photo: Trail of Bits)

Starting with iOS9, the Secure Enclave also enforces all those restrictions against brute-forcing mentioned before. It makes sure the phone gets wiped if the passcode gets guessed more than 10 times, and forces delays for every incorrect try.

Moreover, the Secure Enclave adds another layer of security. When you unlock the phone, your passcode gets mixed up with another key thats physically embedded and fused in the Secure Enclave. This makes it extremely hard for anyone to get this embedded key, known as the Class Key, on their own.

That, however, doesnt mean its impossible. In theory, the FBI could open up the phone and try to extract the keys using lasers, chemicals, or X-rays. But that, according to Guido, is really uncharted territory given that the exact methods required are kind of unknown and the FBI would actually be making some new science here.
That would also likely be expensive, and, most importantly, risky because it could destroy the data that the FBI is actually after.

Were only talking about one shot to take apart the phone and read out the hardware key, and if they screw up there is no way to turn back the dial, Guido told Motherboard.

It should be completely possible to apply this attack even on the newer phones.

​

Theres one big catch, however. None of this matters if Apple can alter the firmware running the Secure Enclave. So if the feds ever get Apple to write that custom forensic tool to disable restrictions against brute-forcing passcodes on a 5C, there might be nothing preventing them to ask Apple to do the same for newer phones. (In that case, they would need two custom forensic tools, but the underlying workaround would be the same.)

Apple declined to comment, and did not answer a specific question asking whether its possible for Apple to alter the firmware on the Security Enclave. But experts, while saying only Apple knows the real answer, agree that it likely is.
It should be completely possible to apply this attack even on the newer phones, Ryan Stortz, a senior security researcher at Trail of Bits, who has studied how the Security Enclave works, told me. Apple will still be creating a solution for the FBI that can be trivially re-used [...] Itd be pretty generically applicable in the future.

Stortz explained that at this point, the only difference would be that the brute-forcing would have to be done on the device itself, so the investigators wouldnt be able to use an external computer. But Apple could still allow the same brute-forcing process to work via some sort of API, and at that point, the only restriction would still be the 80 millisecond limit between guesses, which is enforced at the hardware level, according to Stortz.

COULD THE FEDS DO IT WITHOUT APPLES HELP?

Crucially, the SIF or FBiOS would need to be signed by Apples developer key in order for the device to accept it. Thats why Apple is being ordered to code the special software itself. But if the US government, or anyone else, could force Apple to surrender that master developer key, or stole it, then Apple wouldnt be needed anymore.

The order says that the action taken must be proportionate, so legally compelling Apple to surrender its master development key would be a stretch. But accomplishing this would still be technically possible, though much harder, without Apples help, if the FBI or NSA somehow managed to get Apples signing keysay, by stealing it. (And we know from documents leaked by Edward Snowden that the CIA has been workingon ways to hack the iPhone without Apples help for years.)

Once the key in their possession, investigators would be able to write the customized software image themselves and disable the auto-wipe feature without Apples cooperation. Even further, it would empower the FBI to make software updates stamped with Apples digital signature. In that case, it would essentially be game over.

Forcing a company to surrender encryption keys through legal means isnt completely without precedent, either. Edward Snowdens former email provider Lavabit was infamously compelled to hand over all of its SSL keys during a protracted legal fight with the US government, which resulted in the site being permanently shuttered by its owner, Ladar Levison.

In either case, security and legal experts point out that this would raise troublingconstitutional issues,

since Apple would either be forced to create software to hack its own products or forced to surrender keys, which it would likely argue are protected under several regulations, including intellectual property laws, including as trade secrets.

Give us your dev key is probably on firmer ground legally than write custom code for us but arguably way, way scarier, the CATO Institutes Julian Sanchez wrote on Twitter.

WHATS REALLY AT STAKE

Snowden called the case the most important tech case in a decade, and it might very well be. At stake is whether a company can be legally compelled to sabotage the security of its own software, and the potential consequences are numerous and far-reaching.

Apple believes this is not about whether the company is technically able to comply with this particular order, but about the legal precedent this request would set, according to a source with knowledge of the matter. If the government wins in this case, the source said, it will compel Apple to weaken any other technical protections in the future, no matter the phone.
Furthermore, if the US government can compel Apple to write software that helps it crack passcodes, whats to stop other countries from demanding the same?

Despite the governments narrow framing on a single iPhone used by a dead mass murderer, one thing thats clear is that whatever technical solution results from the case will be used on countless other devices for years to come.
We knew Apple could hack their own phones, the real question is, will the FBI get the precedent they want to be able to force Apple to hack their own phones? Jonathan Zdziarski, a well-known iOS forensic expert, told Motherboard. I have no doubt that if Apple wants to get into an iPhone 6 it can get into an iPhone 6. The bigger question is whether or not were gonna let the courts decide that.

Source

 

[Humi]

Don't do it Apple!

 

[AakhirKab]

Anger, praise for Apple for rebuffing FBI over San Bernardino killer's phone

If the so called 'damage' was done and Muslims were defamed by this incident and US achieved all it's goals as per our friends who claimed this did not happen, I am wondering why all this 'unnecessary' drill now. I'd hope this might be some 'food for thought' for those who always believed in conspiracy theories against Muslims/Pakistan and live in the world of denial.

Anger, praise for Apple for rebuffing FBI over San Bernardino killer's phone

(CNN) For Ryan Reyes, it's personal.

Granted, many people have strong opinions over whether Apple helps the FBI break into the iPhone of San Bernardino killer Syed Farook. It's not just about that single device, they say, but larger issues like privacy and security. It's about how best to balance protecting any one person's secrets and society as a whole.

Reyes' viewpoint, though, is shaped by one person he'll never get back: his boyfriend, Daniel Kaufman, one of 14 gunned down during a holiday luncheon at the southern California city's Inland Regional Center. He has been grieving ever since that December 2 terrorist attack, while authorities have been trying to figure out why Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik --radical Islamists who supported ISIS -- did what they did.
Now, Reyes is trying to figure out why Apple would do what it did this week: oppose a federal judge's order to hack Farook's phone, a step CEO Tim Cook said would involve producing "something we consider too dangerous to create."


"It's infuriating to me, because I feel like all companies -- especially U.S. companies -- should do what they have to do to protect our country," said an "extremely pissed-off" Reyes, who is considering "getting rid of all [of his] Apple products" following Cook's announcement."ven if I wasn't involved in this, I would still want Apple to comply. That's what decent human beings should be doing."Reyes isn't the only one for whom this debate strikes a personal chord.

It matters, too, to Evan Greer. A transgender woman and activist since high school, she's seen "the deeply chilling effect of overly broad government surveillance," including some who shut themselves off and even suffer post-traumatic stress disorder. She views the FBI's request and judge's corresponding order as just one more example, saying it could end up making things far worse for everyone if whatever is created to hack Farook's phone ends up being used or copied to break into millions more mobile devices.

Greer said such sentiments drive her work as an advocate for protecting people's rights online, work she hopes will make the world better for her now 5-year-old son."What type of world is he going to grow up in?" she asked, applauding Apple for standing up against the government for "democracy and freedom of speech." "Will it be one in which he's constantly being monitored, ... where he feels that he has no privacy?"

"...I want him to have the ability to educate himself about [electronic devices] and to do something about them without feeling the government will be watching him."

Tracking killers' electronic trail a challenge

This debate wouldn't have happened if not for what unfolded more than two months ago on what should have been a festive occasion, a party for Farook's co-workers at the San Bernardino County Health Department.
Authorities arrived to the horrific sounds of "moans and wails," and the discovery that the killers had escaped. (They would be killed later that day in a rented SUV after a shootout with police.)


Police hadn't had any involvement with Farook or Malik until then, though investigators quickly began digging into both. Tracking their electronic trail became a big part of the investigation, though the shooters didn't make it easy.

Malik advocated for jihad on social media, but she did it under a pseudonym and used strict privacy settings that did not allow people outside a small group of friends to see them, U.S. law enforcement officials said.
San Bernardino shooting: Farook tied to jihadist recruiter, officials say

Who specifically did she and her husband talk to? Who helped them? Both shooters' phones could help provide answers to these and many other questions, which is why authorities sought Apple's help in accessing Farook's cell.

Apple CEO claims request creates 'backdoor'

Apple has helped the FBI in the past with requests to access information from phones. And before Tuesday's order, investigators had gotten permission to take data off Farook's phone.The problem: Accessing Farook's data was much more difficult because the device had been locked with a user-generated numeric passcode.

Under Apple's operating systems, someone gets 10 tries to enter the right code to access a phone, the government explained in documents seeking the order. After 10 straight failures, Apple's auto-erase function kicks in, permanently wiping all information from the phone.

That's why federal authorities have asked, in court, for Apple's help. The California-based tech giant claims that, to comply, it would have to create a new version of the iPhone operating system to circumvent key security features on Farook's phone.

Apple's next move in its privacy fight against the FBI"In the wrong hands, this software -- which does not exist today -- would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession," Cook wrote in an open letter, which claimed the government overreached by asking for "a backdoor to the iPhone."

Passion on both sides of the debate

Cook quickly found support around the tech industry, with Google CEO Sundar Pichai worrying that Apple's compliance "could be a troubling precedent."

The response was so resounding that Silicon Valley entrepreneur Alex Lindsay surmised, "Any communications/tech CEO that isn't standing with Apple against the FBI is basically admitting that they've already been compromised."

Others, though, have slammed Apple. Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has been among the most vocal. Stuart Stevens, a political consultant who had been a top adviser to GOP candidate Mitt Romney's losing 2012 presidential bid, wondered on Twitter how a company that "put cameras & recording devices in every one's pocket" could suddenly be a champion for privacy.

The Apple encryption debate in 2 minutes"Apple has no problem trying to gather every bit of our personal data for marketing," Stevens tweeted, "but [feels] obligated to protect privacy of dead mass murderers?"

Government officials, meanwhile, rallied around the FBI and U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. New York Police Commissioner William Bratton opined that "no device, no car and no apartment should be beyond the reach of a court-ordered search warrant.

The U.S. Justice Department has insisted the order is "narrowly tailored to this particular phone" and would "not require Apple to redesign its products, to disable encryption or to open content on the phone."Eileen Decker, a U.S. attorney whose central California district includes San Bernardino, framed the debate as a matter of fairness to people like Reyes who are mourning those killed.

"We have made a solemn commitment to the victims and their families that we will leave no stone unturned as we gather as much information and evidence as possible," Decker said. "These victims and families deserve nothing less."

Victim's husband: 'The mystery needs to be resolved'

Mandy Pifer's boyfriend, Shannon Johnson, was there that day at the Inland Regional Center. He sacrificed his own body to shield his co-worker Denise Peraza as the gunshots rang out, saving her life while giving his own.Pifer initially sided with the government in its quest to access the contents of Farook's phone and had criticized Apple.

But after researching the issue, Pifer became undecided on the matter, she told CNN on Thursday."I've done some more reading. I understand more the Apple side of it," Pifer said. "I think it says a lot about America that this security only took place because nude photos of celebrities were hacked. So now you can't hack into a terrorist's phone."

At the same time, Farook's phone may hold answers on whether the terrorist called any conspirators, and that information could help grieving families and loved ones. "For those people, the more answers they get, the more peace it brings," she said.
But, overall, she added, "I'm torn. I'm just torn.""I want justice for all. I have both feet on both sides. I guess I'm just prepared for this to be in the news for a long time and for it to go to the Supreme Court," she said.Salihin Kondoker, whose wife, Anies Kondoker, was shot and survived, said, "Apple needs to help."

"There is so much mystery with this case," he said. "The mystery needs to be resolved."Asked what she'd tell those like Kondoker, Greer said she understands their desire to prevent others from enduring the pain they've experienced. But she says having Apple find a workaround to its security features defeats this purpose if it paves the way for other people, governments -- even terrorist groups -- to access people's private information.

"What the government is trying to do here is not going to make us safer," Greer said. "It's going to make us more at risk for these type of attacks and, in fact, more at risk for all types of violent crime."It's already energized a lot of people who feel the same way, including those planning to attendrallies next Tuesday outside more than a dozen Apple stores organized by Fight for the Future, where Greer serves as campaign director.

"This is one of the biggest things to happen since the (Edward) Snowden revelations," she said, referring to the ex-NSA contractor whose leaking of official secrets made him a villain in the U.S. government's eyes and hero among those fighting for government openness and against excess surveillance.

"... People have a relationship with their phones. And I think that's what's galvanizing people."

CNN's Michael Martinez contributed to this report.

Source

 

[Galaxy]

Re: Anger, praise for Apple for rebuffing FBI over San Bernardino killer's phone

All gong show my friend.It is good for apple sales,people will think apple is the best as for as your privacy info is concern.Jews are the both sides of fence.and don't tell me any different ,I lived all my life here.

 

[AakhirKab]

Re: Anger, praise for Apple for rebuffing FBI over San Bernardino killer's phone

All gong show my friend.It is good for apple sales,people will think apple is the best as for as your privacy info is concern.Jews are the both sides of fence.and don't tell me any different ,I lived all my life here.

All your life - guess you have to cover lot of ground here.

Apple's founders were Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak and none of them were Jews for your information. Apple is not a JEWs owned company. It is a publicly traded corporation. If you have money, you can buy their stocks and be one of the owners. So not sure what you meant by 'Jews are the both sides of fence', it does not make any sense - both logically and grammatically.

And may be you don't know but Apple's data cannot be decrypted as of now, period. The tool to do so does not exist as of now.

http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Last, Apple made over $ 51B in just Q4 of 2015, not sure this action will do any good. I'll let you check their revenues for next quarter to see if this did any good. This hard stance may actually go against them as patriotic Americans could see this as anti-American. And to be frank, the court is going to make the decision now so it is too early to say anything as Apple may end up providing access to FBI as per court's order.

It appears you are just another believer of 'conspiracy theories'.....

 

[k-a-q]

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey thanked Tim Cook for his leadership and said the company stands with Apple. In the tweet, Dorsey also links to Cook's strongly worded open letter that calls the FBI's software request "too dangerous to create."

Facebook warned that a federal judge's order this week to force Apple bypass security functions on the iPhone used by Farook, one of the assailants in the December mass shootings in San Bernardino, Calif., that killed 14 people, would set a "chilling precedent."

The social media giant pledged to "fight aggressively" against government efforts to "weaken the security" of consumer tech products.

"We condemn terrorism and have total solidarity with victims of terror. Those who seek to praise, promote, or plan terrorist acts have no place on our services. We also appreciate the difficult and essential work of law enforcement to keep people safe," the statement reads. "When we receive lawful requests from these authorities we comply. However, we will continue to fight aggressively against requirements for companies to weaken the security of their systems. These demands would create a chilling precedent and obstruct companies' efforts to secure their products."
source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...ort-apple-iphone-san-bernardino-fbi/80578754/​

 

[k-a-q]

Tim Cook Says Creating iPhone-Cracking Software Is 'Equivalent of Cancer' - ABC News: