FBI Paid Professional Hackers To Crack iPhone

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Washington Post is claiming that the FBI didn't commission an Israeli firm to unlock the infamous iPhone 5c as previously reported. Instead, this article says that the agency supposedly paid professional hackers a "one-time flat fee" to make a tool to crack the iPhone's security system.

The new information was then used to create a piece of hardware that helped the FBI to crack the iPhone’s four-digit personal identification number without triggering a security feature that would have erased all the data, the individuals said. The researchers, who typically keep a low profile, specialize in hunting for vulnerabilities in software and then in some cases selling them to the U.S. government. They were paid a one-time flat fee for the solution.
 
and amnesty, right? otherwise they could arrest them. :D:D
 
spintroniX said:
isn't that illegal?
Click to expand...
Not really you're allowed to crack and break into anything physical you own, legally. The government owned the phone(essentially). It gets shady/illegal-ish when you start to publish and distribute such a thing. Hacking isn't illegal if that was true firms that specialize in security couldn't exist.
 
Semantics said:
Not really you're allowed to crack and break into anything physical you own, legally. The government owned the phone(essentially). It gets shady/illegal-ish when you start to publish and distribute such a thing. Hacking isn't illegal if that was true firms that specialize in security couldn't exist.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the very act of circumventing the access controls on the device would be illegal under at least the DMCA. Mainly because it is a badly written and stupid law.
 
But where is the news that they actually found something useful after all this hullabaloo we need something.

They should now send the bill to apple and raise there taxes for not co operating with a terrorist investigation that could save lives.
 
Semantics said:
Not really you're allowed to crack and break into anything physical you own, legally. The government owned the phone(essentially). It gets shady/illegal-ish when you start to publish and distribute such a thing. Hacking isn't illegal if that was true firms that specialize in security couldn't exist.
Click to expand...

Your username name is quite apropos for this response :D
 
Semantics said:
Not really you're allowed to crack and break into anything physical you own, legally. The government owned the phone(essentially). It gets shady/illegal-ish when you start to publish and distribute such a thing. Hacking isn't illegal if that was true firms that specialize in security couldn't exist.
Click to expand...


Fuck me, its a good thing you don't work for the government.....you might pass shit that makes sense!
 
The government is above the law. There is no laws when the government gets involved.
 
Has Apple made an official statement regarding the FBI cracking the phone yet? I remember reading that Apple was demanding the FBI reveal how they did it, but I don't know if they really said that or if it was just media speculation.
 
Semantics said:
Not really you're allowed to crack and break into anything physical you own, legally. The government owned the phone(essentially). It gets shady/illegal-ish when you start to publish and distribute such a thing. Hacking isn't illegal if that was true firms that specialize in security couldn't exist.
Click to expand...
No you aren't (allowed to crack anything you own), and no it doesn't (own the phone).
 
Wait a second... So the government, which includes "Homeland Security" (that sends out multiple warnings to companies about vulnerabilities), is now funding hackers? Umm... ok?
 
raz-0 said:
I'm pretty sure that the very act of circumventing the access controls on the device would be illegal under at least the DMCA. Mainly because it is a badly written and stupid law.
Click to expand...

Your free to file that law suite any time, maybe some .org will back you.
 
Lith1um said:
And more importantly, if it's legal, why did they circulate an untruth?
Click to expand...

If you mean the first reports of an Israeli firm offering assistance?

Those reports never ever actually claimed that the Israeli company cracked the phone. They said the FBI had an offer of assistance from that company, and that they were asking the judge for a stay on the court order while they work this possible solution out. They did not claim the Israeli company was working the issue.
 
AK0tA said:
But where is the news that they actually found something useful after all this hullabaloo we need something.

They should now send the bill to apple and raise there taxes for not co operating with a terrorist investigation that could save lives.
Click to expand...

Again, even nothing is still useful. The terminology is "confirm or deny".
 
  • Like
Reactions: AK0tA
like this
Fun said:
Has Apple made an official statement regarding the FBI cracking the phone yet? I remember reading that Apple was demanding the FBI reveal how they did it, but I don't know if they really said that or if it was just media speculation.
Click to expand...

Apply said if the case continued and Apple was forced to help, and the FBI found a way in, that Apple would insist on knowing the details. Things did not go this way, as far as the public knows.
 
mope54 said:
No you aren't (allowed to crack anything you own), and no it doesn't (own the phone).
Click to expand...

That phone was the government property of the County of San Bernadino California. Or were you trying to make meaningful distinction between this CA. county and the Federal Government of the US?
 
mope54 said:
No you aren't (allowed to crack anything you own), and no it doesn't (own the phone).
Click to expand...

He was a government employee, so the local government owned the phone. Probably gave permission to the feds. It's just a corporate device at that point.

You can't crack DVD's and those encryption. But, what about with a warrant? Doesn't Patriot Act or something cover that/override that?

It sucks and I think it's going too far. But, like the NSA shit - it's TECHNICALLY legal. Just not right.
 
Ur_Mom said:
He was a government employee, so the local government owned the phone. Probably gave permission to the feds. It's just a corporate device at that point.

You can't crack DVD's and those encryption. But, what about with a warrant? Doesn't Patriot Act or something cover that/override that?

It sucks and I think it's going too far. But, like the NSA shit - it's TECHNICALLY legal. Just not right.
Click to expand...

The County gave their permission for Apple to help the FBI, their permission was not needed for the FBI to do their job and search the phone, a warrant took care of that.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Is it any more illegal than if a LEA hires a locksmith to get into a safe?
Click to expand...
Which is what it basically becomes if the software is physically inside of the phone property laws take over. Password doesn't require apple servers to authenticate etc it's just a physical object someone owns making it legal to break and modify it as you see fit. It's just the same as altering your car engines ECU which the action wouldn't be illegal although good luck if you're trying to pass smog test. There are a ton of physical property exceptions in the DMCA, because the MPAA doesn't want that case to happen because they'll lose like they have in the past. It only gets tricky when someone tries to distribute such a thing, or you're dealing with software that doesn't exist on something you physically own.
 
Here's how it went down: Apple postured for PR & slid the key to the FBI. FBI cooked up a story about a 3rd party for Apple's help.
 
Wizard220 said:
Here's how it went down: Apple postured for PR & slid the key to the FBI. FBI cooked up a story about a 3rd party for Apple's help.
Click to expand...

probably played out that way ^ Apple doesnt want the negativity publicity especially when the last time they helped the FBI all the icloud leaks happened
 
lcpiper said:
That phone was the government property of the County of San Bernadino California. Or were you trying to make meaningful distinction between this CA. county and the Federal Government of the US?
Click to expand...
Yes, the FBI does not own the phone even though the local county government agency does own the phone (and neither owns the software inside the device, regardless).

Who owned the phone (I was clarifying that the FBI does *not* own the phone) is a separate issue from whether the DMCA allows people to crack their own personal property, which it does not.


We weren't discussing issues of consent or warrants, merely whether the DMCA would prohibit someone from cracking the software on a device.
 
mope54 said:
Yes, the FBI does not own the phone even though the local county government agency does own the phone (and neither owns the software inside the device, regardless).

Who owned the phone (I was clarifying that the FBI does *not* own the phone) is a separate issue from whether the DMCA allows people to crack their own personal property, which it does not.


We weren't discussing issues of consent or warrants, merely whether the DMCA would prohibit someone from cracking the software on a device.
Click to expand...

I understand, Thank You for clarifying.

As for who owns the software inside the device, that depends upon the purchase agreement. I can't say if the County of San Bernadino did not purchase rights that are not offered to the common individual customer.

For instance, the company that supplies storage systems for my customer normally would require that failed hard drives are returned to the vendor when replaced as warranted items. But because the systems are classified, the government pays more on their contract so that they do not have to return the failed drives and they are destroyed instead.

All I am trying to say is, I do know what agreement they have with Apple but it's probably incorrect to assume that it is identical to any other average customer agreement.
 
lcpiper said:
I understand, Thank You for clarifying.

As for who owns the software inside the device, that depends upon the purchase agreement. I can't say if the County of San Bernadino did not purchase rights that are not offered to the common individual customer.

For instance, the company that supplies storage systems for my customer normally would require that failed hard drives are returned to the vendor when replaced as warranted items. But because the systems are classified, the government pays more on their contract so that they do not have to return the failed drives and they are destroyed instead.

All I am trying to say is, I do know what agreement they have with Apple but it's probably incorrect to assume that it is identical to any other average customer agreement.
Click to expand...
Regardless of any special licensing terms the county may or may not have with with Apple, no special terms would give them ownership of iOS on the devices.
The issue is irrelevant since the DMCA does not carve out exceptions based on "ownership" of the device or the software inside.

Apple certainly did not sell anyone the rights to their encryption schemas and we can also reasonably conclude that Apple did not offer them some special ownership rights over iOS since the FBIs motion would have then been meritless.
 
mope54 said:
Regardless of any special licensing terms the county may or may not have with with Apple, no special terms would give them ownership of iOS on the devices.
The issue is irrelevant since the DMCA does not carve out exceptions based on "ownership" of the device or the software inside.

Apple certainly did not sell anyone the rights to their encryption schemas and we can also reasonably conclude that Apple did not offer them some special ownership rights over iOS since the FBIs motion would have then been meritless.
Click to expand...

Well, the US Army licenses Windows from Microsoft and then re-engineers the OS into what is currently called UGM or Unified Gold Master, which replaced AGM, Army Gold Master. The Army makes some very serious changes to the OS, changes that would likely look like a violation of the DMCA if performed by an individual. Now it's true that most of the changes are related to local machine policy and such and don't necessarily county as modifying the OS, but some changes do. It doesn't mean they own it as in the resell it. But they do become the distributer for the OS to the rest of the Army community. The Army doesn't buy Windows in little plastic boxes or brown cardboard envelopes.

Now if you think it's a wise idea to make assumptions on who has, or hasn't, done what, fell free to speculate all you want.

I don't rule out what anyone will or won't do for a buck.
 
lcpiper said:
Well, the US Army licenses Windows from Microsoft and then re-engineers the OS into what is currently called UGM or Unified Gold Master, which replaced AGM, Army Gold Master. The Army makes some very serious changes to the OS, changes that would likely look like a violation of the DMCA if performed by an individual. Now it's true that most of the changes are related to local machine policy and such and don't necessarily county as modifying the OS, but some changes do. It doesn't mean they own it as in the resell it. But they do become the distributer for the OS to the rest of the Army community. The Army doesn't buy Windows in little plastic boxes or brown cardboard envelopes.

Now if you think it's a wise idea to make assumptions on who has, or hasn't, done what, fell free to speculate all you want.

I don't rule out what anyone will or won't do for a buck.
Click to expand...
I'm not making assumptions. Until you either learn how to read the legal briefs, and/or bother doing so, there is no point in continuing this branch of discussion with you.
 
ShagnWagn said:
Wait a second... So the government, which includes "Homeland Security" (that sends out multiple warnings to companies about vulnerabilities), is now funding hackers? Umm... ok?
Click to expand...

They've been doing this for a LONG time. The US government sends people almost every year to Defcon to try and hire hackers.
 
mope54 said:
I'm not making assumptions. Until you either learn how to read the legal briefs, and/or bother doing so, there is no point in continuing this branch of discussion with you.
Click to expand...

Apple certainly did not sell anyone the rights to their encryption schemas.......
Click to expand...
And how do you know this?
 
Wizard220 said:
The government is above the law. There is no laws when the government gets involved.
Click to expand...

mope54 said:
Regardless of any special licensing terms the county may or may not have with with Apple, no special terms would give them ownership of iOS on the devices.
The issue is irrelevant since the DMCA does not carve out exceptions based on "ownership" of the device or the software inside..
Click to expand...

So, the hackers who are private contractors (who aren't gov't/law enforcement employees), that broke the encryption are allowed to break the DMCA laws? Wouldn't that make the DMCA not really a law? Just a suggestion? Because they won't always prosecute it, only when they feel like it? Wouldn't that make enforcing it at other times a clear case of discrimination? I'd understand if they were prosecuted and the court decided not to apply any punishment for say, a first offense thing, but if they're clearly never going to prosecute such a publicly known violation of an infamous law that is widely known in the news, wouldn't that make the law invalid or something?
 
nightfly said:
So, the hackers who are private contractors (who aren't gov't/law enforcement employees), that broke the encryption are allowed to break the DMCA laws? Wouldn't that make the DMCA not really a law? Just a suggestion? Because they won't always prosecute it, only when they feel like it? Wouldn't that make enforcing it at other times a clear case of discrimination? I'd understand if they were prosecuted and the court decided not to apply any punishment for say, a first offense thing, but if they're clearly never going to prosecute such a publicly known violation of an infamous law that is widely known in the news, wouldn't that make the law invalid or something?
Click to expand...

I think it's unlikely that the hackers did anything that was a direct attack on the file encryption. What provision of the DMCA do you think they've broken, and what evidence leads you to that conclusion?
 
nightfly said:
So, the hackers who are private contractors (who aren't gov't/law enforcement employees), that broke the encryption are allowed to break the DMCA laws? Wouldn't that make the DMCA not really a law? Just a suggestion? Because they won't always prosecute it, only when they feel like it? Wouldn't that make enforcing it at other times a clear case of discrimination? I'd understand if they were prosecuted and the court decided not to apply any punishment for say, a first offense thing, but if they're clearly never going to prosecute such a publicly known violation of an infamous law that is widely known in the news, wouldn't that make the law invalid or something?
Click to expand...




no.

If you are performing work for the government, then you perform work "as" the government, so to speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top