The Feds Can Now (Probably) Unlock Every iPhone Model In Existence

By Thomas Fox-Brewster (Forbes)
Feb 26, 2018

=

In what appears to be a major breakthrough for law enforcement, and a
possible privacy problem for Apple customers, a major U.S. government
contractor claims to have found a way to unlock pretty much every iPhone
on the market.

Cellebrite, a Petah Tikva, Israel-based vendor that's become the U.S.
government's company of choice when it comes to unlocking mobile
devices, is this month telling customers its engineers currently have
the ability to get around the security of devices running iOS 11. That
includes the iPhone X, a model that Forbes has learned was successfully
raided for data by the Department for Homeland Security back in November
2017, most likely with Cellebrite technology.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasb.../#4ef11d00667a

FYI ...... (I didn't know either! ;-) )


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petah_...Peta_Tikwa.jpg

--
David B.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:50:53 +0000, David_B wrote:

By Thomas Fox-Brewster (Forbes)
Feb 26, 2018

=

In what appears to be a major breakthrough for law enforcement, and a
possible privacy problem for Apple customers, a major U.S. government
contractor claims to have found a way to unlock pretty much every iPhone
on the market.

Cellebrite, a Petah Tikva, Israel-based vendor that's become the U.S.
government's company of choice when it comes to unlocking mobile
devices, is this month telling customers its engineers currently have
the ability to get around the security of devices running iOS 11. That
includes the iPhone X, a model that Forbes has learned was successfully
raided for data by the Department for Homeland Security back in November
2017, most likely with Cellebrite technology.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasb...overnment-can-
access-any-apple-iphone-cellebrite/#4ef11d00667a

FYI ...... (I didn't know either! ;-) )


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petah_...Peta_Tikwa.jpg

Yet another good reason to use a dumb flip phone.

In article , ray carter
wrote:

Yet another good reason to use a dumb flip phone.

definitely not. those are *far* easier to crack. they aren't even
encrypted.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , ray carter
wrote:

Yet another good reason to use a dumb flip phone.

definitely not. those are *far* easier to crack. they aren't even
encrypted.

But you probably don't have much incriminating data on it in the first
place.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

Barry Margolin wrote:


Yet another good reason to use a dumb flip phone.

definitely not. those are *far* easier to crack. they aren't even
encrypted.

But you probably don't have much incriminating data on it in the first
place.

I agree with the sentiment to not /put/ incriminating data on a phone,
where a dumb phone will naturally contain far less automatically generating
data in the first place.

But I bring up the sentiment that anyone who thinks /any/ phone is /safe/
is a fool, because, for a criminal anyway, the biggest incrimination is
simply the ping to the cellular tower that makes a cell phone work as a
cell phone.

Those who /feel/ safer with brand X phones versus brand Y phones because
the marketing of brand X is better than brand Y, I posit, are fools,
because the weakest set of links of all cell phones are the same.

Barry Margolin:
But you probably don't have much incriminating data on it in the first
place.

As I am not a criminal, I have no incriminating data, digital or other.

As a professional who has a deep understanding of SIGINT and
surveillance after 32 years in the business, my fear that the US
government might want to crack my iPhone ranks well below my fear that
I will be pecked to death by marauding peacocks that I disturbed while
fleeing an incoming asteroid.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/13024995215

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , ultred ragnusen
wrote:


But I bring up the sentiment that anyone who thinks /any/ phone is /safe/
is a fool, because, for a criminal anyway, the biggest incrimination is
simply the ping to the cellular tower that makes a cell phone work as a
cell phone.

that just shows that the phone was in a given location.

if the criminal leaves the phone at home, it won't put them at the
scene of the crime.

cell tower pings *won't* get access to the data *on* the phone, which
includes photos, text messages, email, calendar, notes, financial
information, social media information and much, much more.

that stuff is *extremely* valuable, not just for investigators, but
also for other criminals, who now know where you live and what your
schedule is (i.e., when to break into your house), who your kids are
and what they look like, where they go to school, etc.

nospam wrote:

that just shows that the phone was in a given location.

if the criminal leaves the phone at home, it won't put them at the
scene of the crime.

Lots of answers to your useless repartee, one of which is that you know
full well that they fly Cessnas over cities to gather up the location of
all phones and they use fake Harris Stingray mobile towers in vehicles to
gather up the same location data on everyone, including both criminals and
nuns.

In addition, extremely many crimes are crimes of passion, or crimes of
opportunity, where there's no chance for the criminal to shut off the phone
before they shoot that person in the car given road rage or whatever.

My main point is that /all/ cellphones have the same set of weakest links
where anyone who actually /feels/ safe because the excellent
M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G of the brand made them /feel/ safe, is a fool.

cell tower pings *won't* get access to the data *on* the phone, which
includes photos, text messages, email, calendar, notes, financial
information, social media information and much, much more.

Since you bought too many arguments this week, I will only note in response
that I said the /set/ of weakest links on all phones is the same, where the
cell-tower ping is only one of those weak links.

For just another example, when you texted someone, and whom you texted, and
even perhaps the size of the text message, and where it was sent from and
where the person was when they received it, etc., are in that set.

My point is that the set of weakest links is the same in /all/ cellular
phones, such that anyone who /thinks/ they're safe from prying eyes because
MARKETING of brand X said so, is a fool.

that stuff is *extremely* valuable, not just for investigators, but
also for other criminals, who now know where you live and what your
schedule is (i.e., when to break into your house), who your kids are
and what they look like, where they go to school, etc.

A Harris StingRay is not all that expensive to buy and use.

Davoud wrote:

As a professional who has a deep understanding of SIGINT and
surveillance after 32 years in the business, my fear that the US
government might want to crack my iPhone ranks well below my fear that
I will be pecked to death by marauding peacocks that I disturbed while
fleeing an incoming asteroid.

I think we all have a relatively deep understanding of SIGINT where anyone
who wishes to put the bits together can piece together rather easily our
actions.

For example, let's say you're not a criminal, but that you want to run for
office, but you visited that lady of ill repute or that young man on Friday
afternoon, or even that doctor who specializes in venereal diseases last
Saturday or maybe just that you recently searched on your phone for a size
10 dress when your wife has a size 0 frame.

The point of those imaginary examples is just that there are lots of things
that aren't illegal that people do that should still be kept private from
prying eyes.

Davoud:
As a professional who has a deep understanding of SIGINT and
surveillance after 32 years in the business, my fear that the US
government might want to crack my iPhone ranks well below my fear that
I will be pecked to death by marauding peacocks that I disturbed while
fleeing an incoming asteroid.

ultred ragnusen:
I think we all have a relatively deep understanding of SIGINT where anyone
who wishes to put the bits together can piece together rather easily our
actions.

If you think that you are delusional. You haven't even got a very
shallow understanding of SIGINT collection and processing. Persons
outside the community know as much about SIGINT as they do about
neurosurgery. Less, potentially, as the entire body of knowledge on
neurosurgery is publicly available.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm