[lukev]

I mean, the security features are pretty well documented. The FBI can't crack a modern iPhone even with Apple's help. A lot of the lockdowns are in service of that.

I'm curious: what hardware and software stack do you use?

[switch007]

Cellebrite Premium 7.69.5 iOS Support Matrix from July 2024.

https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/14344-cellebrite-premium-ju...

[fingerlocks]

Doesn't AFU here mean the phone had to be already unlocked? Which is most of the entries?

[saagarjha]

AFU means the phone was unlocked and then relocked.

[fingerlocks]

Right, so not the use case involving the police up thread.

[saagarjha]

Police do often want to get into phones in that state. This is why Cellebrite sells that product.

[misiek08]

FBI and Apple „can't”, but 3rd party do and they do it cheaper every day.

[lukev]

They do not.

Edit: I have not posted a source for this claim, because what sort of source would be acceptable for a claim of the form "X has not occurred"?

If you are going to claim Apple's security model has been compromised, you need not only evidence of such a compromise but also an explanation for why such an "obvious" and "cheap" vulnerability has not been disclosed by any number of white or grey-hat hackers.

[dankwizard]

Yes they do.

[lukev]

If you're going to claim that random hacking groups routinely do something the FBI and NSA claim to be unable to do... citation needed.

[dankwizard]

Ok [1]

"Since then, technologies like Grayshift’s GrayKey—a device capable of breaking into modern iPhones—have become staples in forensic investigations across federal, state, and local levels."

"In other cases where the FBI demanded access to data stored in a locked phone, like the San Bernardino and Pensacola shootings, the FBI unlocked devices without Apple’s help, often by purchasing hacking tools from foreign entities like Cellebrite."

1 - https://www.firstpost.com/tech/the-fbi-was-able-to-hack-into...

[makeitdouble]

An issue with taking their claim at face value is they have no incentive to say they can:

- they can keep asking for backdoors to "stop terrorists"

- they're not on the hook if for whatever reason they can't access a particular phone in a very mediatized case

- most targets (the not so sophisticated ones at least) keep using a device the agencies have proper access to

Regardless of their actual technical means, I don't expect we ever get a "we sure can!" kind of public boasting any time soon.

[spiderice]

Jesus, just post a source.

[coldtea]

the burden on proof is not on him to prove a negative

[bigfudge]

Is there evidence of this. I’d be interested to know more.