5 ms·
I'm not sure you can draw the conclusion that Apple can push OS updates to a locked phone. What Tim Cook wrote is that > "install it on an iPhone recovered dur
by coderjames 11y ago
I'm not sure you can draw the conclusion that Apple can push OS updates to a locked phone.
What Tim Cook wrote is that
> "install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation."
> "the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession."
So the FBI has the physical phone already. They can deliver to Apple who can disassemble it and either use a JTAG/Flash programmer on an internal connector to manually write new software, or they could desolder the Flash holding the old OS and place a new one.
Both of these techniques are common enough in the embedded industry that I expect this is what Apple means. They probably can't push an OTA software update and force the install on a locked device.
- mehrdada 11y agoThey need to break the boot trust chain to load unsigned code. Simply rewriting the flash isn't enough.
- Someone1234 11y agoWhy would the code be unsigned? If Apple wrote the backdoor OS, they could presumably sign it.
- mehrdada 11y agoI incorrectly totally misread the OP and thought was talking about FBI flashing it themselves, without Apple help. Yes, of course Apple can sign it. I stand corrected but can't delete my comment. To clarify, I agree that nothing they ask of Apple is technically impossible or even that difficult for Apple to pull off, probably via simple DFU without touching the flash at all.
- knodi123 11y agowhy load unsigned code? can't apple sign it?
- DSingularity 11y agoHence the need for a validbOS from Apple.
- ck2 11y agoPretty sure you can upgrade the OS on a locked phone if you have physical access to it.
- FussyZeus 11y agoNegative. You need the passcode.
- rsync 11y ago"I'm not sure you can draw the conclusion that Apple can push OS updates to a locked phone." The iphone contains a sim card. A sim card is a complete, general purpose computer with its own CPU and RAM and the ability to run arbitrary java programs that can be uploaded, without your knowledge by your carrier. You are owned. Deeply, profoundly, in ways that you have no way to manage/mitigate. The real question, for me, is why authorities are dealing with Apple at all and not just working with the carriers who have proven to be their trusted allies.
- digler999 11y ago> why authorities are dealing with Apple at all I'd guess "security by obscurity". Just because they have the device rooted via SIM card doesn't mean they have available a signed build of a multi-gigabyte OS with most security libraries expunged.
- JoshTriplett 11y agoWith a sensibly-built phone, that SIM card does not have the ability to access anything of value on the device.
- nitrogen 11y agoIs there a list of sensibly built phones available? I'd like to buy a phone where the modem and SIM do not have access to main memory (AIUI most phones use a single-chip SoC with a built-in modem).
- an_account 11y agoWhat's the point of accessing main memory in a locked and encrypted phone?
- hackuser 11y ago> What's the point of accessing main memory in a locked and encrypted phone? The phone isn't always locked and encrypted; for example, whenever the user is using the phone it's unlocked and decrypted.
- xenadu02 11y agoThe 5C at issue in this case does not have the modern secure enclave like the 5S and newer devices. The newer devices run a special L4 kernel on the secure enclave. It is not updateable without providing the existing passcode. It enforces the attempt rate limiting and key deletion on too many attempts (if enabled). Special limited communication channels allow the CPU to talk to the SE. In production devices the SE has JTAG disabled. Encryption and decryption of the master keys happen inside the SE with its own private AES engine so even oracle/timing attacks on the main CPU are useless. Why doesn't Apple just help hack this phone but wash their hands of newer devices and tell customers to upgrade? Because if the FBI and this court get away with using the All Writs act to compel Apple to write new software they'll eventually be forced to add a backdoor to SE-equipped devices too. Courts won't understand or care about the differences. If the government forced them, Apple could insert a backdoor into the next major version of iOS or the hardware; then everyone inputs their passcode during the upgrade and the backdoor is deployed. Their primary defense against that so far (and the only real one you can have as a corporation) is to never build the capability in the first place. This judge's order is telling them to go build the capability (in theory for this one phone). The fact that you can't retroactively build the backdoor for 5S and newer devices isn't the main issue. Better to fight every step of the way and draft as many pro-privacy people as possible into the fight to apply political pressure.
- marcoperaza 11y ago> Because if the FBI and this court get away with using the All Writs act to compel Apple to write new software they'll eventually be forced to add a backdoor to SE-equipped devices too. Courts won't understand or care about the differences The whole point is that it doesn't matter what the court thinks if Apple cannot comply due to the laws of nature. That was their whole argument to begin with. Their argument now is pretty mushy in comparison.