SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Judge Orders Apple to Unlock iPhone Belonging to San Bernardino Shooter
Apple has been ordered to assist in the unlocking of an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters. This may require updating the firmware to bypass restrictions on PIN unlock attempts:
Apple must assist the FBI in unlocking the passcode-protected encrypted iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters in California. US magistrate Sheri Pym says Cupertino must supply software that prevents the phone from automatically annihilating its user data when too many password attempts have been made.
The smartphone belonged to Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik shot and killed 14 coworkers on December 2. The couple died in a gun battle with police soon after. Cops have been unable to access Syed's iPhone 5C because they do not know the correct PIN, and will now gain the assistance of Apple, as ordered by Judge Pym [PDF] on Tuesday.
iOS 8 and above encrypts data on devices, requiring a four to six-digit PIN to unlock. After the first few wrong guesses, iOS waits a few minutes between accepting further PIN entry attempts, escalating to an hour's delay after the ninth failed login.
[...] Judge Pym wants Apple to come up with some magic software – perhaps a signed firmware update or something else loaded during boot-up – that will allow the FBI to safely brute-force the PIN entry without the device self-destructing. This code must only work on Farook's phone, identified by its serial numbers, and no other handset. The code must only be run on government or Apple property, and must not slow down the brute-forcing process.
Apple has five days to appeal or demonstrate that it cannot comply with the order. It is crucial to note that the central district court of California has not instructed Apple to crack its encryption – instead it wants Apple to provide a tool to effectively bypass the unlocking mechanism. "It's technically possible for Apple to hack a device's PIN, wipe, and other functions. Question is can they be legally forced to hack," said iOS security expert Jonathan Ździarski.
Apple Ordered to Aid FBI in Unlocking Shooter's iPhone
According to this Reuters article, "A U.S. judge on Tuesday ordered Apple Inc to help the FBI break into a phone recovered from one of the San Bernardino shooters, an order that heightens a long-running dispute between tech companies and law enforcement over the limits of encryption.
Apple must provide "reasonable technical assistance" to investigators seeking to unlock the data on an iPhone 5C that had been owned by Syed Rizwan Farook, Judge Sheri Pym of U.S. District Court in Los Angeles said in a ruling."
"...Forensics expert Jonathan Zdziarski said Tuesday Apple might have to write custom code to comply with the order, presenting a novel question to the court about whether the government could order a private company to hack its own device.
Zdziarski said that because the San Bernardino shooting was being investigated as a terrorism case, investigators would be able to work with the NSA and CIA on cracking the phone. Those U.S. intelligence agencies likely could break the iPhone's encryption without Apple's involvement, he said."
Update: EFF to file an amicus brief in support of Apple's position.
Update 2: mendax writes: The New York Times has some "breaking news" which says that Apple will not comply with the judge's order. It's a good way to get in trouble with the judge but it's the right decision on Apple's part.
Previously: FBI Unable to Decrypt California Terrorists' Cell Phone
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @01:02PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-wants-apple-to-help-unlock-iphone-used-by-san-bernardino-shooter/2016/02/16/69b903ee-d4d9-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
The order does not ask Apple to break the phone’s encryption, but rather to disable the feature that wipes the data on the phone after 10 incorrect tries at entering a password. That way, the government can try to crack the password using “brute force” — attempting tens of millions of combinations without risking the deletion of the data.
but then
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160216/17393733617/no-judge-did-not-just-order-apple-to-break-encryption-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone-to-create-new-backdoor.shtml [techdirt.com]
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2714005/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst-iPhone.pdf [documentcloud.org]
Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT DEVICE and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.
Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File ("SIF") that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device's flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade ("DFU") mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.
If Apple determines that it can achieve the three functions stated above in paragraph 2, as well as the functionality set forth in paragraph 3, using an alternate technological means from that recommended by the government, and the government concurs, Apple may comply with this Order in that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @01:11PM
> it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.
cryptsetup's --iter-time does a good job then.
(if you don't know, this flag accepts a parameter in milliseconds which adds additional hash cycles to decrypt a volume e.g. --iter-time 2000 will take the password, hash it, then hash the resulting hash over and over for 2 seconds to come up with the true decryption key. Depending on the speed of the processor, this will result in a number of rehashes in the 10,000+ range. The purpose being to deliberately slow down a brute force attack by making the attacker have to hash a password guess 10,000+ times instead of once.)
Damn I love gnu.
(Score: 2) by ticho on Wednesday February 17 2016, @02:44PM
Just a nitpick, but cryptsetup is not a GNU program.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Wednesday February 17 2016, @01:54PM
The order does not ask Apple to break the phone’s encryption,
No, it just asks Apple to take actions that will result in the phone's encryption being broken. By that logic, the shooters didn't kill people, they just took actions that resulted in people being hit by bullets.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Wednesday February 17 2016, @03:18PM
To keep in your weapons analogy: The FBI doesn't ask Apple to shoot, it only asks apple to open the weapon lockers so the FBI can take the gun out and shoot.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by WillR on Wednesday February 17 2016, @03:39PM
(And Apple is resisting because if they do it "just this once", they're going to immediately be buried under court orders to build a million bespoke guns to shoot the locks off of every locked iPhone a cop has ever taken from a penny-ante weed dealer.)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @05:45PM
As well as do the same for the government of every country where they do business like Saudi, Iran, Russia and China. Even if you are a true blue patriot who thinks the US government is completely ethical, chances are you don't think the same of other governments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 17 2016, @09:31PM
Honest question:
Why can't they do it this once, and then say NO to future requests especially non-US government requests.
I read this is voluntary assistance right? Setting legal precedence for nothing more that voluntary action. They can still say yes or no in future, or am I missing something?
thx
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday February 17 2016, @11:13PM
Why can't they do it this once, and then say NO to future requests especially non-US government requests.
Because once they do it once, it weakens all their arguments as to why it should never be done.
(Score: 1) by WillR on Thursday February 18 2016, @01:54PM
(Well, maybe. If an individual did it they would certainly be locked up, but Apple has a lot of money...)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2016, @03:08PM
thx