Mobile
2/25/2016
10:20 AM
50%
50%

Apple Reportedly Further Locking Down The iPhone

Apple is reportedly working on making it even harder to unlock its iPhone, upping the ante in its dispute with the FBI.

Apple reportedly is working on making the iPhone even more un-crackable such that the company would be unable to update an iPhone's software without the user's password. In addition, Apple is looking at ways to encrypt iPhone backups on iCloud.

News of Apple further locking down its newer phones was reported by various media outlets this week, quoting unnamed sources close the projects. The goal of these initiatives, of course, is to make it nearly impossible for Apple to comply with requests such as that of the FBI's to access an iPhone belonging to alleged San Bernardino terror suspect Syed Farook.

For more details on these latest developments, read this New York Times report and this Washington Post report.

Related Content:

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
cyberpink
50%
50%
cyberpink,
User Rank: Strategist
3/3/2016 | 10:50:34 AM
Apple, FBI and our privacy
Apple is doing exactly what you would expect.  This is not their first standoff with a government over cellphone security.  They have an ongoing standoff with China, who demands to have backdoors into their systems, which would give China a view at Apple's intellectual property.  There is no evidence that Apple has treated the situation with the US any differently than it has with China.  The main difference I see in the arguement is the US government protects our civil liberties, while the other foreign nation-states do not.  Apple is not giving in to anyone at this point.

Our FBI is tasked with protecting our civil liberties by catching and stopping the perpetrators before a lethal attack occurs.  In my eyes, the FBI is fighting to protect our civil liberties by taking a stand to protect the US homeland.  Being able to gain access to cell phone data is critical to their mission.

As a US born citizen, I feel privacy is important.  I agree with Apple's standoff.  I also agree with the FBI's demands.  My question is their a happy medium for all parties involved?  Both groups are being true to their mission - which has put them at odds.  I would really like so see a good resolution that benefits both security and privacy in our country.  Apple has always found their partnership with the FBI and the US government as beneficial.  I feel they can come to a reasonable resolution.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 12:30:57 PM
Others
One more thing, other should follow what apple is doing. They need to give responsibility of securing devices to users themselves. If I want to secure it I would if not I would not, neither apple nor government should be deciding that.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 12:30:35 PM
Re: Buck stops?
Also, I do not thing Tim Cook is personally liable on this, it is Apple, I f it was financial dispute it may end up with Tim Cook being responsible but this is not that.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 12:28:34 PM
Re: Buck stops?
If the government wants to pursue further they can, based on how court rules Apple has to comply regardless. The is the Republican of Apple. :--)).
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 12:26:30 PM
Re: Raising the bar
Agree. FBI can always get the information they are looking for with different means, such as talking to involved parties :--))
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 12:24:37 PM
Right strategy
This would be right strategy in my view so we do not have this non-sense conversation between a government and the private sector. 
Whoopty
50%
50%
Whoopty,
User Rank: Ninja
2/26/2016 | 7:47:13 AM
Buck stops?
I love how Apple is playing this. Doubling down shows it is really serious about the defence it's mounting which is great to see.

What I'm curious about now though is where the buck stops? If Apple flat out refuses to comply with the court's demands, does Tim Cook get in trouble legally? Are Apple employees forced at gunpoint to make the software changes?

How does it work if a company just says no?
RyanSepe
100%
0%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 2:24:53 PM
Raising the bar
Even though this is a shot at the FBI for their current quarrel, further locking down the iPhone increases its security. So even if the underlying cause is this incident, it has had a positive outcome for security.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
DNS Threats: What Every Enterprise Should Know
Domain Name System exploits could put your data at risk. Here's some advice on how to avoid them.
Flash Poll
Containing Corporate Data on Mobile Devices
Containing Corporate Data on Mobile Devices
If you’re still focused on securing endpoints, you’ve got your work cut out for you. WiFi network provider iPass surveyed 1,600 mobile workers and found that the average US employee carries three devices -- a smartphone, a computer, and a tablet or e-reader -- with more than 80% of them doing work on personal devices.
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-7445
Published: 2015-10-15
The Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) subsystem in the Linux kernel through 4.x mishandles requests for Graphics Execution Manager (GEM) objects, which allows context-dependent attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via an application that processes graphics data, as demonstrated b...

CVE-2015-4948
Published: 2015-10-15
netstat in IBM AIX 5.3, 6.1, and 7.1 and VIOS 2.2.x, when a fibre channel adapter is used, allows local users to gain privileges via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2015-5660
Published: 2015-10-15
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in eXtplorer before 2.1.8 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that execute PHP code.

CVE-2015-6003
Published: 2015-10-15
Directory traversal vulnerability in QNAP QTS before 4.1.4 build 0910 and 4.2.x before 4.2.0 RC2 build 0910, when AFP is enabled, allows remote attackers to read or write to arbitrary files by leveraging access to an OS X (1) user or (2) guest account.

CVE-2015-6333
Published: 2015-10-15
Cisco Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC) 1.1j allows local users to gain privileges via vectors involving addition of an SSH key, aka Bug ID CSCuw46076.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio

The cybersecurity profession struggles to retain women (figures range from 10 to 20 percent). It's particularly worrisome for an industry with a rapidly growing number of vacant positions.

So why does the shortage of women continue to be worse in security than in other IT sectors? How can men in infosec be better allies for women; and how can women be better allies for one another? What is the industry doing to fix the problem -- what's working, and what isn't?

Is this really a problem at all? Are the low numbers simply an indication that women do not want to be in cybersecurity, and is it possible that more women will never want to be in cybersecurity? How many women would we need to see in the industry to declare success?

Join Dark Reading senior editor Sara Peters and guests Angela Knox of Cloudmark, Barrett Sellers of Arbor Networks, Regina Wallace-Jones of Facebook, Steve Christey Coley of MITRE, and Chris Roosenraad of M3AAWG on Wednesday, July 13 at 1 p.m. Eastern Time to discuss all this and more.