Хабр Курсы для всех
РЕКЛАМА
Практикум, Хекслет, SkyPro, авторские курсы — собрали всех и попросили скидки. Осталось выбрать!
Либо есть какие-то другие причины, по которым это невозможно (отдать телефон в Apple).
For devices with an A7 or later A-series processor, the Secure Enclave coprocessor also utilizes a secure boot process that ensures its separate software is verified and signed by Apple.…
On a device with an A7 or later A-series processor, the Secure Enclave coprocessor also utilizes System Software Authorization to ensure the integrity of its software and prevent downgrade installations…
The Secure Enclave is a coprocessor fabricated in the Apple A7 or later A-series processor. It utilizes its own secure boot and personalized software update separate from the application processor. It provides all cryptographic operations for Data Protection key management and maintains the integrity of Data Protection even if the kernel has been compromised.
The Secure Enclave uses encrypted memory and includes a hardware random number generator. Its microkernel is based on the L4 family, with modifications by Apple. Communication between the Secure Enclave and the application processor is isolated to an interrupt-driven mailbox and shared memory data buffers. Each Secure Enclave is provisioned during fabrication with its own UID (Unique ID) that is not accessible to other parts of the system and is not known to Apple. When the device starts up, an ephemeral key is created, entangled with its UID, and used to encrypt the Secure Enclave’s portion of the device’s memory space. Additionally, data that is saved to the file system by the Secure Enclave is encrypted with a key entangled with the UID and an anti-replay counter.
Телефон был обнаружен в автомобиле в заблокированном состоянии.
Farook’s iPhone was found powered off. (Supp. Pluhar Decl. ¶ 2.). Subsequent testing has revealed that once powered off, an iPhone will not back itself up to an iCloud account unless and until it has been unlocked at least once by use of the passcode. (Perino Decl. ¶¶ 6.d, 37-39.) Moreover, the evidence on Farook’s iCloud account suggests that he had already changed his iCloud password himself on October 22, 2015—shortly after the last backup—and that the autobackup feature was disabled. (Pluhar Decl. ¶ 8; Supp. Pluhar Decl. ¶ 9.)
But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.
Таким образом, Apple принуждают говорить обратное точке зрения компании, что нарушает первую поправку конституции США.
D. The Order Does Not Implicate, Let Alone Violate, the First and Fifth Amendments
Apple begins its Opposition by insisting that the issues in this case should be left to Congress (Opp. 9), and ends by insisting that the Constitution takes those issues off the table (Opp. 32-34). Not so. The Order is constitutional, notwithstanding Apple’s assertion of corporate speech rights…
Apple’s claim is particularly weak because it does not involve a person being compelled to speak publicly, but a for-profit corporation being asked to modify commercial software that will be seen only by Apple. There is reason to doubt that functional programming is even entitled to traditional speech protections.…
To the extent Apple’s software includes expressive elements—such as variable names and comments—the Order permits Apple to express whatever it wants, so long as the software functions.…
And even assuming, arguendo, that the Order compels speech-like programming, there is no audience: Apple’s code will be developed in the utmost secrecy and will never be seen outside the corporation… For all of these reasons, the Order simply does not compel speech.
Code determining how many retries a user is permitted before the data on an iPhone is permanently lost “lack[s] the expressive quality of a parade, a newsletter, or the editorial page of a newspaper.”…
9 For the reasons discussed above, the FBI cannot itself modify the software on Farook’s iPhone without access to the source code and Apple’s private electronic signature. The government did not seek to compel Apple to turn those over because it believed such a request would be less palatable to Apple. If Apple would prefer that course, however, that may provide an alternative that requires less labor by Apple programmers. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 281-83 (4th Cir. 2014) (affirming contempt sanctions imposed for failure to comply with order requiring the company to assist law enforcement with effecting a pen register on encrypted e-mail content which included producing private SSL encryption key).
Apple ответила на требования ФБР. В суде компанию поддержат Google, Facebook и Microsoft