> Natanson said she does not use biometrics for her devices, but after investigators told her to try, “when she applied her index finger to the fingerprint reader, the laptop unlocked.”
My read on this is that she tried to bluff, even though the odds were astronomically high that they'd call her on it. She didn't have anything to lose by trying a little white lie. It's what I would have done in the same situation, anyway.
It seems unfortunate that enhanced protection against physically attached devices requires enabling a mode that is much broader, and sounds like it has a noticeable impact on device functionality.
I never attach my iPhone to anything that's not a power source. I would totally enable an "enhanced protection for external accessories" mode. But I'm not going to enable a general "Lockdown mode" that Apple tells me means my "device won’t function like it typically does"
Every time something like this happens I assume it is a covert marketing campaign.
If the government wants to get in they’re going to get in. They can also hold you in contempt until you do.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good thing that law enforcement cant easily access this on their own. Just feels like the government is working with Apple here to help move some phones.
I trust 404 media more than most sources, but I can’t help but reflexively read every story prominently showcasing the FBI’s supposed surveillance gaps as attempted watering hole attacks. The NSA almost certainly has hardware backdoors in Apple silicon, as disclosed a couple of years ago by the excellent researchers at Kaspersky. That being the case, Lockdown Mode is not even in play.
Can a hacked phone (such as one that was not in Lockdown Mode at one point in time) persist in a hacked state?
Obviously, the theoretical answer is yes, given an advanced-enough exploit. But let's say Apple is unaware of a specific rootkit. If each OS update is a wave, is the installed exploit more like a rowboat or a frigate? Will it likely be defeated accidentally by minor OS changes, or is it likely to endure?
This answer is actionable. If exploits are rowboats, installing developer OS betas might be security-enhancing: the exploit might break before the exploiters have a chance to update it.
Sadly, they still got to her Signal on her Desktop – her sources might still be compromised. It's sadly inherent to desktop applications, but I'm sad that a lot more people don't know that Signal for Desktop is much, much less secure against adversaries with your laptop.
It sounds like almost all of our devices have security by annoyance as default. Where are the promises of E2E encryption and all the privacy measures? When I turned on lockdown mode on my iPhone, there were a few notifications where the random spam calls I get were attempting a FaceTime exploit. How come we have to wait until someone can prove ICE can't get into our devices?
The FBI was able to access Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Signal messages because she used Signal on her work laptop. The laptop accepted Touch ID for authentication, meaning the agents were allowed to require her to unlock it.
Compelled speech is protected, fingerprints aren't.
Imagine it's 1926 and none of this tech is an issue yet. The police can fingerprint and photograph you at intake, they can't compel speech or violate the 5th.
That's exactly what's being applied here. It's not that the police can do more or less than they could in 1926, it's that your biometrics can do more than they did in 1926. They're just fingerprinting you / photographing you .. using your phone.
Also, using biometrics on a device, and your biometrics unlock said device, do wonders for proving to a jury that you owned and operated that device. So you're double screwed in that regard.
One thing I miss from windows (on mac now) is there was an encrypted vault program that you could have hide so it wasn't on the desktop or program list but could still be launched. That way you could have private stuff that attackers would likely not even know was there.
I find it so frustrating that Lockdown Mode is so all-or-nothing.
I want some of the lockdown stuff (No facetime and message attachments from strangers, no link previews, no device connections), but like half of the other ones I don't want.
Why can't I just toggle an iMessage setting for "no link preview, no attachments", or a general setting for "no automatic device connection to untrusted computers while locked"? Why can't I turn off "random dickpicks from strangers on iMessage" without also turning off my browser's javascript JIT and a bunch of other random crap?
Sure, leave the "Lockdown mode" toggle so people who just want "give me all the security" can get it, but split out individual options too.
Just to go through the features I don't want:
* Lockdown Mode disables javascript JIT in the browser - I want fast javascript, I use some websites and apps that cannot function without it, and non-JIT js drains battery more
* Shared photo albums - I'm okay viewing shared photo albums from friends, but lockdown mode prevents you from even viewing them
* Configuration profiles - I need this to install custom fonts
Apple's refusal to split out more granular options here hurts my security.
I’m with you on the shared photo albums. I’d been using lockdown mode for quite a while before I discovered this limitation, though. For me, this is one I’d like to be able to selectively enable (like the per-website/app settings). In my case, it was a one-off need, so I disabled lockdown mode, shared photos, then enabled it again.
The other feature I miss is screen time requests. This one is kinda weird - I’m sure there’s a reason they’re blocked, but it’s a message from Apple (or, directly from a trusted family member? I’m not 100% sure how they work). I still _recieve_ the notification, but it’s not actionable.
While I share with your frustration, though, I do understand why Apple might want to have it as “all-or-nothing”. If they allow users to enable even one “dangerous” setting, that ultimately compromises the entire security model. An attacker doesn’t care which way they can compromise your device. If there’s _one_ way in, that’s all they need.
Ultimately, for me the biggest PiTA with lockdown mode is not knowing if it’s to blame for a problem I’m having. I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve disabled and re-enabled it just to test something that should work, or if it’s the reason a feature/setting is not showing up. To be fair, most of the time it’s not the issue, but sometimes I just need to rule it out.
The main point of lockdown mode is to provide security against state sponsored attacks against journalists. If it was granular the attackers would exploit whichever switches most people leave off. It would be a cat/mouse game until all the switches were turned on. So Apple skipped to the end of the game.
Don't be idiots. The FBI may say that whether or not they can get in:
1. If they can get in, now people - including high-value targets like journalists - will use bad security.
2. If the FBI (or another agency) has an unknown capability, the FBI must say they can't get in or reveal their capabilities to all adversaries, including to even higher-profile targets such as counter-intelligence targets. Saying nothing also risks revealing the capability.
3. Similarly if Apple helped them, Apple might insist that is not revealed. The same applies to any third party with the capability. (Also, less significantly, saying they can't get in puts more pressure on Apple and on creating backdoors, even if HN readers will see it the other way.)
Also, the target might think they are safe, which could be a tactical advantage. It also may exclude recovered data from rules of handling evidence, even if it's unusable in court. And at best they haven't got in yet - there may be an exploit to this OS version someday, and the FBI can try again then.
I would not recommend that one trust a secure enclave with full disk encryption (FDE). This is what you are doing when your password/PIN/fingerprint can't contain sufficient entropy to derive a secure encryption key.
The problem with low entropy security measures arises due to the fact that this low entropy is used to instruct the secure enclave (TEE) to release/use the actual high entropy key. So the key must be stored physically (eg. as voltage levels) somewhere in the device.
It's a similar story when the device is locked, on most computers the RAM isn't even encrypted so a locked computer is no major obstacle to an adversary. On devices where RAM is encrypted the encryption key is also stored somewhere - if only while the device is powered on.
53 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 109 ms ] threadCurious.
I never attach my iPhone to anything that's not a power source. I would totally enable an "enhanced protection for external accessories" mode. But I'm not going to enable a general "Lockdown mode" that Apple tells me means my "device won’t function like it typically does"
If the government wants to get in they’re going to get in. They can also hold you in contempt until you do.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good thing that law enforcement cant easily access this on their own. Just feels like the government is working with Apple here to help move some phones.
Obviously, the theoretical answer is yes, given an advanced-enough exploit. But let's say Apple is unaware of a specific rootkit. If each OS update is a wave, is the installed exploit more like a rowboat or a frigate? Will it likely be defeated accidentally by minor OS changes, or is it likely to endure?
This answer is actionable. If exploits are rowboats, installing developer OS betas might be security-enhancing: the exploit might break before the exploiters have a chance to update it.
FBI unable to extract data from iPhone 13 in Lockdown Mode in high profile case [pdf]
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.58...
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843967)
https://x.com/runasand/status/2017659019251343763?s=20
The FBI was able to access Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Signal messages because she used Signal on her work laptop. The laptop accepted Touch ID for authentication, meaning the agents were allowed to require her to unlock it.
Except when they can: https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/state-v-andrews/
Imagine it's 1926 and none of this tech is an issue yet. The police can fingerprint and photograph you at intake, they can't compel speech or violate the 5th.
That's exactly what's being applied here. It's not that the police can do more or less than they could in 1926, it's that your biometrics can do more than they did in 1926. They're just fingerprinting you / photographing you .. using your phone.
At least a password and pin you choose to give over.
I want some of the lockdown stuff (No facetime and message attachments from strangers, no link previews, no device connections), but like half of the other ones I don't want.
Why can't I just toggle an iMessage setting for "no link preview, no attachments", or a general setting for "no automatic device connection to untrusted computers while locked"? Why can't I turn off "random dickpicks from strangers on iMessage" without also turning off my browser's javascript JIT and a bunch of other random crap?
Sure, leave the "Lockdown mode" toggle so people who just want "give me all the security" can get it, but split out individual options too.
Just to go through the features I don't want:
* Lockdown Mode disables javascript JIT in the browser - I want fast javascript, I use some websites and apps that cannot function without it, and non-JIT js drains battery more
* Shared photo albums - I'm okay viewing shared photo albums from friends, but lockdown mode prevents you from even viewing them
* Configuration profiles - I need this to install custom fonts
Apple's refusal to split out more granular options here hurts my security.
The other feature I miss is screen time requests. This one is kinda weird - I’m sure there’s a reason they’re blocked, but it’s a message from Apple (or, directly from a trusted family member? I’m not 100% sure how they work). I still _recieve_ the notification, but it’s not actionable.
While I share with your frustration, though, I do understand why Apple might want to have it as “all-or-nothing”. If they allow users to enable even one “dangerous” setting, that ultimately compromises the entire security model. An attacker doesn’t care which way they can compromise your device. If there’s _one_ way in, that’s all they need.
Ultimately, for me the biggest PiTA with lockdown mode is not knowing if it’s to blame for a problem I’m having. I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve disabled and re-enabled it just to test something that should work, or if it’s the reason a feature/setting is not showing up. To be fair, most of the time it’s not the issue, but sometimes I just need to rule it out.
1. If they can get in, now people - including high-value targets like journalists - will use bad security.
2. If the FBI (or another agency) has an unknown capability, the FBI must say they can't get in or reveal their capabilities to all adversaries, including to even higher-profile targets such as counter-intelligence targets. Saying nothing also risks revealing the capability.
3. Similarly if Apple helped them, Apple might insist that is not revealed. The same applies to any third party with the capability. (Also, less significantly, saying they can't get in puts more pressure on Apple and on creating backdoors, even if HN readers will see it the other way.)
Also, the target might think they are safe, which could be a tactical advantage. It also may exclude recovered data from rules of handling evidence, even if it's unusable in court. And at best they haven't got in yet - there may be an exploit to this OS version someday, and the FBI can try again then.
The problem with low entropy security measures arises due to the fact that this low entropy is used to instruct the secure enclave (TEE) to release/use the actual high entropy key. So the key must be stored physically (eg. as voltage levels) somewhere in the device.
It's a similar story when the device is locked, on most computers the RAM isn't even encrypted so a locked computer is no major obstacle to an adversary. On devices where RAM is encrypted the encryption key is also stored somewhere - if only while the device is powered on.