Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« BAF Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Here : where Apple is with respect to privacy.....

By: zzstar in BAF | Recommend this post (0)
Sat, 31 Mar 18 2:14 AM | 93 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Bash-a-Farter 		Msg. 01832 of 06530
(This msg. is a reply to 01831 by Decomposed)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Making up shit again. The Data on the phone WAS SECURE, that’s why they couldn’t get it. The hack they employed in Israel was on two generations old version of iOS, and 3 generations old hardware.

The only thing I learned is that all you know is from internet searching all day, blubbermouth.

And Enterprise use of iOS at around 90% shows you are full of bullshit.


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Here : where Apple is with respect to privacy.....
By: Decomposed in BAF
Sat, 31 Mar 18 1:44 AM 		Msg. 01831 of 06530

zzfart:

Re: “BUT THEY DID GET THE BACKUPS OF TNE PERIOD PRIOR TO THAT FROM APPLE.”

Two factor greatly increases the strength that password-only authentication would provide but doesn't make it perfect. Nothing is perfect. Two factor does nothing if the vendor weakens the algorithm intentionally or routes data through two channels, one of which is insecure. It also is only as secure as the algorithm, and the best algorithms are found to be lacking every few years which is why there are so many. A few years back, DES was the preferred form of encryption. Then AES. Then 3DES. Now AES-256. Down the road a piece, there will be something else and AES-256 will be considered insecure.

Apple currently employs AES-128. I have no idea why AES-256 is preferred. Sounds like a weakness.

I'm happy you learned something - that the data on the phone was not actually secure. You haven't yet learned the more important lesson - that we only have Apple's word for it that they have no backdoor circumventing the cryptographic process. You're a trusting sort, so I guess their word is good enough for you. It's not good enough for me. An independent auditor should review Apple's systems and attest to the results, and Apple should contract the hardware and software security responsibilities to separate independent vendors so as to lessen the probability of a back door. Failing that, the possibility exists.

« BAF Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next