Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
FBI Vs. Apple: Privacy Syllabus
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
hewenthatway
hewenthatway,
User Rank: Strategist
2/24/2016 | 5:29:01 PM
yay
Great!  Another multi-click adventure! /s
Whoopty
Whoopty,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 7:01:06 AM
Solid Support
It's really heatening to see so many individuals and companies stand up in defence of Apple's actions and that Apple/Tim Cook are willing to go so hard to defend their position. The latest rumor I read is that it will be citing the first and fifth amendments in its defence, which suggests to me that it's really digging its heels in.

I think this case will set a lot of precedents, so I have my fingers crossed. 
cyclepro
cyclepro,
User Rank: Strategist
2/25/2016 | 9:28:19 AM
Apple vs FBI
You would think that with all of the resources available to the federal goverment that they should be able to crack it (or be able to bypass it).

I think that it is wrong for the goverment to force a company to reveal it's secrets. Let the goverment go out. buy an iphone and crack it themselves..

 
ANON1251553927262
ANON1251553927262,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/25/2016 | 10:54:04 AM
Dark Reading's Primer on FBI vs Apple
I am surprised that you have not 1 opinion from the other side.  I am sure that there are reasoned, intelligent opionions in the opposite direction.

 

I am having serious trouble with this issue.  The part of me that works for / with the Government says, "Damn straight, open that box here is the warrant."  The part of me that is still a hippi of the 60s says, "Hold on there cowboy."


I want to believe that organizations (private and public) have for the most part honorable intentions.  It just doesn't seem that way.  Once the tool is there some Apple employee will take the 50,000 bribe to sell it to Mr. Terroristsky.  If not at Apple, the at some government branch where it was just laying around.

Tough choices all around.  Good luck, America.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 4:44:50 PM
There is a way out
Since FBI asks for a modification in the firmware, Apple can do this with a cost that can only work on that phone. Anything that goes beyond that is just a show. I love apple and using all their products, reality is they are for profit company, when they say I want to secure you data they mean I want to make more profit, this is not about my security or privacy.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 4:46:01 PM
Re: yay
Personally I like is a slide mode better than an article with bunch of paragraphs.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 4:48:26 PM
Re: Solid Support
That is how our laws are getting very complex and eventually costing regular hard working population. Apple and FBI is going to be just fine. They do not care about us.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 4:54:39 PM
Re: Dark Reading's Primer on FBI vs Apple
For me is it an easy choice, both FPI and Apple should stop scaring public with the terrorism stick and get back to work and do this in a way that that can only wok on that phone. They have been working on all other cases, this is not any different.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 4:56:57 PM
Re: Apple vs FBI
Obviously they could not. The government does not really have resources and skills that Apple has.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
2/25/2016 | 5:00:00 PM
The information in iPhone
Another point I would like to make, there should not be any information in iPhone that is not somewhere else. The only think that can be in iPhone are the pictures most likely, there rest is always somewhere else too.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Machine Learning, AI & Deep Learning Improve Cybersecurity
Machine intelligence is influencing all aspects of cybersecurity. Organizations are implementing AI-based security to analyze event data using ML models that identify attack patterns and increase automation. Before security teams can take advantage of AI and ML tools, they need to know what is possible. This report covers: -How to assess the vendor's AI/ML claims -Defining success criteria for AI/ML implementations -Challenges when implementing AI
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-40942
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-28
Tenda TX3 US_TX3V1.0br_V16.03.13.11 is vulnerable to stack overflow via compare_parentcontrol_time.
CVE-2022-40912
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-28
ETAP Lighting International NV ETAP Safety Manager 1.0.0.32 is vulnerable to Cross Site Scripting (XSS). Input passed to the GET parameter 'action' is not properly sanitized before being returned to the user. This can be exploited to execute arbitrary HTML/JS code in a user's browser session in cont...
CVE-2022-22523
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-28
An improper authentication vulnerability exists in the Carlo Gavazzi UWP3.0 in multiple versions and CPY Car Park Server in Version 2.8.3 Web-App which allows an authentication bypass to the context of an unauthorised user if free-access is disabled.
CVE-2022-22524
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-28
In Carlo Gavazzi UWP3.0 in multiple versions and CPY Car Park Server in Version 2.8.3 an unauthenticated remote attacker could utilize a SQL-Injection vulnerability to gain full database access, modify users and stop services .
CVE-2022-22525
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-28
In Carlo Gavazzi UWP3.0 in multiple versions and CPY Car Park Server in Version 2.8.3 an remote attacker with admin rights could execute arbitrary commands due to missing input sanitization in the backup restore function