In 2015 and 2016, Apple Inc. received and objected to or challenged at least 11 orders issued by United States district courts under the All Writs Act of 1789. Most of these seek to compel Apple "to use its existing capabilities to extract data like contacts, photos and calls from locked iPhones running on operating systems iOS 7 and older" in order to assist in criminal investigations and prosecutions. A few requests, however, involve phones with more extensive security protections, which Apple has no current ability to break. These orders would compel Apple to write new software that would let the government bypass these devices' security and unlock the phones.[3]
The most well-known instance of the latter category was a February 2016 court case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wanted Apple to create and electronically sign new software that would enable the FBI to unlock a work-issued iPhone 5C it recovered from one of the shooters who, in a December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, killed 14 people and injured 22. The two attackers later died in a shootout with police, having first destroyed their personal phones. The work phone was recovered intact but was locked with a four-digit password and was set to eliminate all its data after ten failed password attempts (a common anti-theft measure on smartphones). Apple declined to create the software, and a hearing was scheduled for March 22. However, a day before the hearing was supposed to happen, the government obtained a delay, saying it had found a third party able to assist in unlocking the iPhone. On March 28, the government announced that the FBI had unlocked the iPhone and withdrew its request. In March 2018, the Los Angeles Times reported that "the FBI eventually found that Farook's phone had information only about work and revealed nothing about the plot."[4]
aes 128 crack software for iphone
On February 9, 2016, the FBI announced that it was unable to unlock the county-owned phone it recovered, due to its advanced security features, including encryption of user data.[18][19] The FBI first asked the National Security Agency to break into the phone, but they were unable to since they only had knowledge of breaking into other devices that are commonly used by criminals, and not iPhones.[20] As a result, the FBI asked Apple Inc. to create a new version of the phone's iOS operating system that could be installed and run in the phone's random access memory to disable certain security features that Apple refers to as "GovtOS". Apple declined due to its policy which required it to never undermine the security features of its products. The FBI responded by successfully applying to a United States magistrate judge, Sheri Pym, to issue a court order, mandating Apple to create and provide the requested software.[21] The order was not a subpoena, but rather was issued under the All Writs Act of 1789.[22][23] The court order, called In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.[24][25][26]
The use of the All Writs Act to compel Apple to write new software was unprecedented and, according to legal experts, it was likely to prompt "an epic fight pitting privacy against national security."[27] It was also pointed out that the implications of the legal precedent that would be established by the success of this action against Apple would go far beyond issues of privacy.[28]
The order also specifies that Apple's assistance may include providing software to the FBI that "will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the [software] would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE"[25]
On the same day the order was issued, chief executive officer Tim Cook released an online statement to Apple customers, explaining the company's motives for opposing the court order. He also stated that while they respect the FBI, the request they made threatens data security by establishing a precedent that the U.S. government could use to force any technology company to create software that could undermine the security of its products.[35] He said in part:
In response to the opposition, on February 19, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a new application urging a federal judge to compel Apple to comply with the order.[36] The new application stated that the company could install the software on the phone in its own premises, and after the FBI had hacked the phone via remote connection, Apple could remove and destroy the software.[37] Apple hired attorneys Ted Olson and Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. to fight the order on appeal.[27]
The government cited as precedent United States v. New York Telephone Co., in which the Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that the All Writs Act gave courts the power to demand reasonable technical assistance from the phone company in accessing phone calling records. Apple responded that New York Telephone was already collecting the data in question in the course of its business, something the Supreme Court took note of in its ruling. Apple also asserts that being compelled to write new software "amounts to compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. ... What is to stop the government from demanding that Apple write code to turn on the microphone in aid of government surveillance, activate the video camera, surreptitiously record conversations, or turn on location services to track the phone's user?" Apple argued that the FBI had not made use of all of the government's tools, such as employing the resources of the NSA. A hearing on the case was scheduled for March 22, 2016.[42]
Some news outlets, citing anonymous sources, identified the third party as Israeli company Cellebrite. However, The Washington Post reported that, according to anonymous "people familiar with the matter", the FBI had instead paid "professional hackers" who used a zero-day vulnerability in the iPhone's software to bypass its ten-try limitation, and did not need Cellebrite's assistance.[63][64] In April 2021, The Washington Post reported that the Australian company Azimuth Security, a white hat hacking firm, had been the one to help the FBI.[65]
In addition to the San Bernardino case and the Brooklyn case, Apple has received at least nine different requests from federal courts under the All Writs Act for iPhone or iPad products. Apple has objected to these requests. This fact was revealed by Apple in court filings in the Brooklyn case made at the request of the judge in that case. Most of these requests call upon Apple "to use its existing capabilities to extract data like contacts, photos and calls from locked iPhones running on operating systems iOS7 and older" (as in the Brooklyn case), while others "involve phones with more extensive encryption, which Apple cannot break" and presumably seek to order Apple to "design new software to let the government circumvent the device's security protocols and unlock the phone" (as in the San Bernardino case).[3]
Salihin Kondoker, whose wife was shot in the attack but survived, filed a friend of the court brief siding with Apple; his brief said that he "understand[s] that this software the government wants them to use will be used against millions of other innocent people. I share their fear."[95]
On April 13, 2016 U.S. Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein, the Republican Chair and senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, respectively, released draft legislation that would authorize state and federal judges to order "any person who provides a product or method to facilitate a communication or the processing or storage of data" to provide data in intelligible form or technical assistance in unlocking encrypted data and that any such person who distributes software or devices must ensure they are capable of complying with such an order.[114][115]
ENC Security produces encryption software and it can be used to protect files on a Sandisk USB stick. The ENC Security encryption system, called DataVault, can be used on many other platforms, including Windows or macOS computers. ENC DataVault can also secure cloud drives, such as Dropbox. ","author":"@type":"Person","name":"Amakiri Welekwe","description":"Amakiri is a UK-trained technology consultant and cybersecurity evangelist, working at the intersection of security, technology, and people. He has a master\u2019s degree in network systems with over 10 years\u2019 experience in managing IT services and infrastructure. He\u2019s been writing about cybersecurity since 2013.\n","url":"https:\/\/www.comparitech.com\/author\/amakiri-welekwe\/"}},"@type":"Question","name":"What is ENC DataVault Lite?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":"@type":"Answer","text":"ENC DataVault Lite was available for use only with Lexar storage solutions. However, the company no longer offers this version. There is now only one core product in ENC\u2019s DataVault division.","author":"@type":"Person","name":"Amakiri Welekwe","description":"Amakiri is a UK-trained technology consultant and cybersecurity evangelist, working at the intersection of security, technology, and people. He has a master\u2019s degree in network systems with over 10 years\u2019 experience in managing IT services and infrastructure. He\u2019s been writing about cybersecurity since 2013.\n","url":"https:\/\/www.comparitech.com\/author\/amakiri-welekwe\/","@type":"Question","name":"What is ENC encryption?","answerCount":1,"acceptedAnswer":"@type":"Answer","text":"ENC Security offers two encryption options on its DataVault storage security product. These are both implementations of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). You can encrypt your data with AES with a 128-bit key or with a 256-bit key. The AES service with a 256-bit key is uncrackable. However, a longer key makes the encryption and decryption process slower. Reducing the strength of security by opting for a 128-bit key isn\u2019t a big risk. The exact estimate on the length of time an encryption system would take to crack varies according to the speed and power of the computer used to perform the brute force attack. However, even with the world\u2019s fastest computer, it would take billions of years to crack the 128-bit AES key, so that should be secure enough for anyone. ","author":"@type":"Person","name":"Amakiri Welekwe","description":"Amakiri is a UK-trained technology consultant and cybersecurity evangelist, working at the intersection of security, technology, and people. He has a master\u2019s degree in network systems with over 10 years\u2019 experience in managing IT services and infrastructure. He\u2019s been writing about cybersecurity since 2013.\n","url":"https:\/\/www.comparitech.com\/author\/amakiri-welekwe\/"]} "@context":"http:\/\/schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":["@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.comparitech.com\/","@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Net Admin","item":"https:\/\/www.comparitech.com\/net-admin\/","@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"ENC DataVault (Formally EncryptStick) Software Review & Alternatives","item":"https:\/\/www.comparitech.com\/net-admin\/enc-datavault-review\/"]Net AdminENC DataVault (Formally EncryptStick) Software Review & Alternatives We are funded by our readers and may receive a commission when you buy using links on our site. ENC DataVault (Formally EncryptStick) Software Review & Alternatives Here's what you need to know about ENC DataVault file encryption software, including a list of the ten best ENC DataVault alternatives out there. Amakiri Welekwe Technology Advisor Cybersecurity Evangelist UPDATED: January 5, 2023 body.single .section.main-content.sidebar-active .col.grid-item.sidebar.span_1_of_3 float: right; body.single .section.main-content.sidebar-active .col.grid-item.content.span_2_of_3 margin-left: 0; 2ff7e9595c
Комментарии