Previous 1 13 14 15 16 17 Next 246 Replies Latest reply: Jul 26, 2014 3:39 AM by thomas_r. Go to original post Branched to a new discussion.
  • thomas_r. Level 7 Level 7 (29,775 points)

    to say such a thing doesnt exist is inaccurate, as noted in your FinFisher example.

     

    To imply that something does exist, without any evidence at all, isn't reasonable. There are some very good reasons to believe that a remote access hack does not exist, such as the iOS security model and the close scrutiny of numerous security companies.

     

    PS: I wouldnt hang up to much on the physical access point either. That is the most speculative point being made.

     

    Not at all. It's pretty much a given that physical access can compromise an iOS device - or any other kind of device - completely. The speculative part is that physical access is not required. There's no evidence at all for that.

  • piersonk Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)

    thomas_r. wrote:

     

    to say such a thing doesnt exist is inaccurate, as noted in your FinFisher example.

     

    To imply that something does exist, without any evidence at all, isn't reasonable. There are some very good reasons to believe that a remote access hack does not exist, such as the iOS security model and the close scrutiny of numerous security companies.

     

    PS: I wouldnt hang up to much on the physical access point either. That is the most speculative point being made.

     

    Not at all. It's pretty much a given that physical access can compromise an iOS device - or any other kind of device - completely. The speculative part is that physical access is not required. There's no evidence at all for that.

     

    Your point with FinFinder was that it does exist. Im not implying it exists, you are.

     

    You know what, you guys are right. What am I thinking? This is ludicrous.

     

    Do you guys have any room in the sand for my head too or are all the head holes taken?

  • thomas_r. Level 7 Level 7 (29,775 points)

    You seem to be confusing two different things. An exploit that requires physical access is unimpressive. This is what FinFisher is, and this is what the evidence says that DROPOUTJEEP is. An exploit that can be taken advantage of remotely is currently unknown, and no evidence exists that there is such a thing.

  • piersonk Level 1 Level 1 (5 points)

    Let's get one thing straight. I'm not confused.

  • codyf115 Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    It seems all the tech companies Google, Apple, Microsoft publicly are clear that they don't support illegal access to our data. But what companies have backed up these words with actions? If Microsoft actually kicked and fought the NSA I would consider, as painful as it would be switching from Mac to PC.

  • Meg St._Clair Level 8 Level 8 (42,775 points)

    codyf115 wrote:

     

    It seems all the tech companies Google, Apple, Microsoft publicly are clear that they don't support illegal access to our data. But what companies have backed up these words with actions? If Microsoft actually kicked and fought the NSA I would consider, as painful as it would be switching from Mac to PC.

    And what, exactly, is it you expect them to do? They don't provide back doors. Apple is using warrant canaries. Do you expect them to break the law? Stages protest? Write their congressman (they've probably done that)?

  • thomas_r. Level 7 Level 7 (29,775 points)

    codyf115 wrote:

     

    But what companies have backed up these words with actions?

     

    Apple has, as much as they are allowed to by law. For example, consider that they are the only company that I know of to boldly go right up against the edge of the law and issue transparency reports that contain "warrant canaries."

     

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/apples-first-transparency-report-gets-warr ant-canaries-right

Previous 1 13 14 15 16 17 Next