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.

Database Security
Authentication
Mobile
Privacy
Compliance
Careers and People
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
Apple Reportedly Further Locking Down The iPhone
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
cyberpink
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.


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
Practical Network Security Approaches for a Multicloud, Hybrid IT World
The report covers areas enterprises should focus on for their multicloud/hybrid cloud security strategy: -increase visibility over the environment -learning cloud-specific skills -relying on established security frameworks -re-architecting the network
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-30333
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-09
RARLAB UnRAR before 6.12 on Linux and UNIX allows directory traversal to write to files during an extract (aka unpack) operation, as demonstrated by creating a ~/.ssh/authorized_keys file. NOTE: WinRAR and Android RAR are unaffected.
CVE-2022-23066
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-09
In Solana rBPF versions 0.2.26 and 0.2.27 are affected by Incorrect Calculation which is caused by improper implementation of sdiv instruction. This can lead to the wrong execution path, resulting in huge loss in specific cases. For example, the result of a sdiv instruction may decide whether to tra...
CVE-2022-28463
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-08
ImageMagick 7.1.0-27 is vulnerable to Buffer Overflow.
CVE-2022-28470
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-08
marcador package in PyPI 0.1 through 0.13 included a code-execution backdoor.
CVE-2022-1620
PUBLISHED: 2022-05-08
NULL Pointer Dereference in function vim_regexec_string at regexp.c:2729 in GitHub repository vim/vim prior to 8.2.4901. NULL Pointer Dereference in function vim_regexec_string at regexp.c:2729 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) via a crafted input.