NYT reports San Bernardino iPhone hacked!
- 03-30-16 08:10 PMLike 0
- Integrated circuit: as in the Qualcomm Snapdragon processor 808, or 801, etc.
Qualcomm has its own security features built in and they don't have to share everything with BlackBerry or Samsung or whoever.
Same goes for Intel processors and for Apple processors.03-30-16 09:20 PMLike 0 -
For example, mine hangs when I use my macbook's Hotspot, but never hangs on other wi-fi networks or when I use just cellular service and turn my wi-fi off.
I always use my Passport to read Crackberry, never a laptop or tablet.03-30-16 09:26 PMLike 0 - Yeah and large portion of people on here use "security" as a buzz word for why using a Blackberry is important. Because Blackberry references security so often its constantly used as a reason why having a Blackberry is important by many on here, when their phone without BES is no more secure than any other one.
Same with the Priv. Because Blackberry says its protecting your privacy with it (which it most certainly is not) people say "I'm using a Priv because I value my privacy," which is a complete joke. I own one myself, but I'm not under the illusion that my information is kept private from Google, because it isn't.03-30-16 09:31 PMLike 0 -
They just have no options of a phone that is secure and private, because bb10 is technically discontinued.
For example, I don't want to use Macs because I don't think they are secure and I don't like MacOs. However, I now have to use one until I get back to my Linux laptop after I finish my travels.
I use it mostly as a dumb terminal, for its light weight, high resolution retina display, to remotely log in in my office Linux workstation and view the layouts of my circuits. I have absolutely no apps installed on my Mac other than x11 and Openoffice, both of which are open software and are available in Linux.03-31-16 01:59 AMLike 0 - Superfly_FRRetired Moderator
As for the fingerprint phishing, apple swore they don't store it ... but I wonder what is stored on a (cloud) device backup when the FP is enabled (that's a question, not an assumption).03-31-16 04:23 AMLike 0 - Superfly_FRRetired ModeratorYeah and large portion of people on here use "security" as a buzz word for why using a Blackberry is important. Because Blackberry references security so often its constantly used as a reason why having a Blackberry is important by many on here, when their phone without BES is no more secure than any other one.
Same with the Priv. Because Blackberry says its protecting your privacy with it (which it most certainly is not) people say "I'm using a Priv because I value my privacy," which is a complete joke. I own one myself, but I'm not under the illusion that my information is kept private from Google, because it isn't.
Anything stored internally on an encrypted BBOS/BB10 device with a reasonable password can be considered as safe. What goes out/in through networks can be intercepted and read if not encrypted properly. I've not digged enough with the PRIV to print the same consideration as of date but I'd be tempted to state that the level of security (still abt what is stored on the device) has been enhanced at a level that was previously reserved to (paying) specific needs and offered to the general audience at no extra cost.03-31-16 04:30 AMLike 0 - All I was saying was that there may be people who use Iphones, who care about security and privacy and not that much about apps.
They just have no options of a phone that is secure and private, because bb10 is technically discontinued.
For example, I don't want to use Macs because I don't think they are secure and I don't like MacOs. However, I now have to use one until I get back to my Linux laptop after I finish my travels.
I use it mostly as a dumb terminal, for its light weight, high resolution retina display, to remotely log in in my office Linux workstation and view the layouts of my circuits. I have absolutely no apps installed on my Mac other than x11 and Openoffice, both of which are open software and are available in Linux.03-31-16 05:47 AMLike 0 - Summing up :
Anything stored internally on an encrypted BBOS/BB10 device with a reasonable password can be considered as safe. What goes out/in through networks can be intercepted and read if not encrypted properly. I've not digged enough with the PRIV to print the same consideration as of date but I'd be tempted to state that the level of security (still abt what is stored on the device) has been enhanced at a level that was previously reserved to (paying) specific needs and offered to the general audience at no extra cost.
As far as your other comments go there is a difference between security and privacy. The Priv may be more secure than your run of the mill Android phone because Blackberry has done a good job with the security patches, but security isn't even a word they use for it. They don't market it as the first secure or only secure Blackberry phone because they know that at its core, they can't say that.
I was talking more on privacy with the Priv anyway. To say you value your privacy and that's why you use the Priv is a major stretch. Any phone that runs Android isn't private. Its no mystery why all google apps were excluded from DTek. It isn't private from Google and because Google wouldn't allow that. It might protect your privacy from apps or at least for now notify you if your privacy is being breached by an app but its not shielding you from Google.Superfly_FR likes this.03-31-16 05:55 AMLike 1 - Apple never claimed they couldn't crack the iPhone. They said they considered doing it to dangerous because of the legal presdent it would set. It was the FBI who said the iPhone was too secure thus why they brought Apple to court to try and compell them to create a tool for the FBI to open the iPhone setting the presdent Apple was afraid of. Apple never claimed they're security was uncraclable, that was the FBI!03-31-16 07:46 AMLike 0
- How does that humiliate Apple? Again Apple didn't claim the iPhone was unhackable, that was the FBI. I don't understand how it humiliated Apple who hack the iPhone, weather it be the NSA or a third party, if anything, it should humiliate the FBI. You know, the people who said to a congressional hearing that they have ehusated every option they had to crack the iPhone but it was simply unhackable while maintaining the stored data.TGR1 likes this.03-31-16 07:54 AMLike 1
- I got it for light work, mostly as a dumb high resolution terminal, but I didn't expect it to be worse at some of that light work than my Passport. Battery, heating, even speed are worse than the Passport's and than my 5-year old 11inch HP Laptop running Suse Enterprise Linux. All of that despite my MacBook 12 inch being fully loaded with maximum RAM and flash memory.
Last edited by sorinv; 03-31-16 at 08:07 AM.
03-31-16 07:55 AMLike 0 - How does that humiliate Apple? Again Apple didn't claim the iPhone was unhackable, that was the FBI. I don't understand how it humiliated Apple who hack the iPhone, weather it be the NSA or a third party, if anything, it should humiliate the FBI. You know, the people who said to a congressional hearing that they have ehusated every option they had to crack the iPhone but it was simply unhackable while maintaining the stored data.
Apple's image has now been tarnished, as clearly reported by a lot of important media outlets like NPR, New York Times, BBC, and the Globe and Mail, all of which are normally very pro-Apple.
This looks very bad on Apple because it is a third party, a mere small company from a country of 6million people, not the mighty FBI or NSA, which hacked the phone and whose technique they cannot be sure of and who can do it again and again in the future.
I agree with you that it is NOT OK that the FBI wants access to everyone's phones, but that does not mean that Apple was not deeply hurt in its technical pride.Last edited by sorinv; 03-31-16 at 08:19 AM.
03-31-16 08:03 AMLike 0 -
- Superfly_FRRetired ModeratorAny device (smartphone, desk/laptop, TV set, whatever) that runs facebook, google-something or more generally any app granting remote access to stored information or peripheral is non secure by design.
I was trying to stand on topic re: what if my device (PW protected, encrypted) is found : can anyone fetch stored data ? AFAIK, the answer for BBOS/BB10 and probably PRIV is no. The difference I see for PRIV (but calling experts here) is that security on the PRIV is not only handled by the "OS" but by an underlying & chips related extra layer, before the OS even start to boot.
P.S: Seems we agree pretty much, maybe my language is approximative, againdonnation likes this.03-31-16 08:18 AMLike 1 - Any device (smartphone, desk/laptop, TV set, whatever) that runs facebook, google-something or more generally any app granting remote access to stored information or peripheral is non secure by design.
I was trying to stand on topic re: what if my device (PW protected, encrypted) is found : can anyone fetch stored data ? AFAIK, the answer for BBOS/BB10 and probably PRIV is no. The difference I see for PRIV (but calling experts here) is that security on the PRIV is not only handled by the "OS" but by an underlying & chips related extra layer, before the OS even start to boot.
P.S: Seems we agree pretty much, maybe my language is approximative, again
Yep, any app with file access is a security weakness, even on bB10. Ghost commander comes to mind right away. The latter even automatically de-encrypts your encrypted files as it transfers them to a remote computer, just as email does to an attached encrypted file.Last edited by Superfly_FR; 03-31-16 at 08:57 AM. Reason: (merged with latest quote)
03-31-16 08:26 AMLike 0 - Superfly_FRRetired ModeratorWhat Qualcomm doesn't manage is the other components BlackBerry has PINed ... nor the PIN and how it works. At a certain point, we might want to lighten parano�a a bit and remember BlackBerry pretty much invented phones security. They certainly not use one factor "anything"Superdupont 2_0 likes this.03-31-16 08:56 AMLike 1
- Even if Apple didn't directly claim that they were unhackable, they came out strongly emphasizing that they would do everything to ensure the security and privacy of their users' data.
Apple's image has now been tarnished, as clearly reported by a lot of important media outlets like NPR, New York Times, BBC, and the Globe and Mail, all of which are normally very pro-Apple.
This looks very bad on Apple because it is a third party, a mere small company from a country of 6million people, not the mighty FBI or NSA, which hacked the phone and whose technique they cannot be sure of and who can do it again and again in the future.
I agree with you that it is NOT OK that the FBI wants access to everyone's phones, but that does not mean that Apple was not deeply hurt in its technical pride.
Also Apple didn't directly or indirectly claim they couldn't break the security. They said they don't currently have the tools themselves to do such a thing, and consider making them far too dangerous. Claiming the iPhone was too secure was all the FBI.
Will Apple suffer from a short term small dent on its perfect image, of course, (but honestly, and I'm saying this as an Apple fan, they're are a lot of small dents on Apple perfect image, so as they're are on every large company and even small ones. And most people won't/don't care) a lot of people will look at the case with no information and think Apple is siding with the terrorists without realising Apple is trying to protect your right to privacy. But we all tend to have short memory and will forget about this went the FBI tries again with a different company ending with this small dent on Apple public image will be gone.03-31-16 10:29 AMLike 0 - The best commence so far
Apple did say, helping the FBI Undermine decades of security advancement. Apple ios was the number two in 2015 with the most security issues, the number one operating system with the most security issues was macOS. Apple decades are 5 days long in terms of security and privacy .
Apple did say it couldn�t be done, at least by themselves, although to be fair they didn�t say someone else could do it did they?�
03-31-16 10:34 AMLike 3 - Because they are, and here you go offering more. Did everyone you know that owns an iPhone tell you they bought it because of "status?" Or are you saying that because that's what you believe? Have you spoken to every single iPhone user worldwide? Have they all told you that they don't want security? Have they all told you that all they care about is apps and "status?" Without that, all you have is generalizations. You see, making up generalizations is quite easy. I could easily say that all Android users are poor and/or uneducated. Or, that no BlackBerry user uses social networks. Or, that all Coca-Cola drinkers are stupid. I've not talked to, nor taken a survey of all Android users worldwide, nor all BlackBerry users worldwide, nor all Coke drinkers worldwide, so all I have is generalizations. When you make a statement like "no iPhone user cares about security," you're making a generalization.jallister and Elephant_Canyon like this.03-31-16 04:30 PMLike 2
- Because they are, and here you go offering more. Did everyone you know that owns an iPhone tell you they bought it because of "status?" Or are you saying that because that's what you believe? Have you spoken to every single iPhone user worldwide? Have they all told you that they don't want security? Have they all told you that all they care about is apps and "status?" Without that, all you have is generalizations. You see, making up generalizations is quite easy. I could easily say that all Android users are poor and/or uneducated. Or, that no BlackBerry user uses social networks. Or, that all Coca-Cola drinkers are stupid. I've not talked to, nor taken a survey of all Android users worldwide, nor all BlackBerry users worldwide, nor all Coke drinkers worldwide, so all I have is generalizations. When you make a statement like "no iPhone user cares about security," you're making a generalization.03-31-16 08:40 PMLike 0
- What Qualcomm doesn't manage is the other components BlackBerry has PINed ... nor the PIN and how it works. At a certain point, we might want to lighten parano�a a bit and remember BlackBerry pretty much invented phones security. They certainly not use one factor "anything"
I did not claim that the qualcomm IC controls the BlackBerry PIN. It does not have to to transmit data to and from the phone! It is the RF transceiver and the processor that do it. Whatever BlackBerry does is on top of that. The foundation is Qualcomm. BlackBerry is just the roof and maybe some walls.Last edited by sorinv; 04-01-16 at 01:35 AM.
04-01-16 01:23 AMLike 0 - I believe the third party in question is a company that does nothing more than breaks encryption no matter the company who makes it. Seeing that this is what they do for a living, I don't find it at all surprising that they are good at it. What should be embarrassing is that with all the mighty FBI's resources, they couldn't crack it themselves and had to go to a mere small company from a country of 6 million people to do they're job for them. I don't see it as embarrassing to Apple. What I see is Apple went up against the FBI to pertect it's users, the FBI; not liking the odds of them winning with public support behind Apple, before getting a ruling that they wouldn't like, said nevermind, I actually had the key in my other pocket this entire time.
Also Apple didn't directly or indirectly claim they couldn't break the security. They said they don't currently have the tools themselves to do such a thing, and consider making them far too dangerous. Claiming the iPhone was too secure was all the FBI.
Will Apple suffer from a short term small dent on its perfect image, of course, (but honestly, and I'm saying this as an Apple fan, they're are a lot of small dents on Apple perfect image, so as they're are on every large company and even small ones. And most people won't/don't care) a lot of people will look at the case with no information and think Apple is siding with the terrorists without realising Apple is trying to protect your right to privacy. But we all tend to have short memory and will forget about this went the FBI tries again with a different company ending with this small dent on Apple public image will be gone.
That may happen in the not too distant future.
The excuse with terrorism has been used for thousands of years. The communist regimes also invoked terrorists as an excuse to surveill and control their population.
At the end of the day, they are not banning weapons which are the ones that kill, not the phones.04-01-16 01:31 AMLike 0
- Forum
- Popular at CrackBerry
- General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
NYT reports San Bernardino iPhone hacked!
Similar Threads
-
Earnings report prediction
By laid-back in forum BBRYReplies: 9Last Post: 04-01-16, 03:29 AM -
How Far Am I golf rangefinder for Blackberry. Has the same app been developed for iPhone?
By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a QuestionReplies: 0Last Post: 03-28-16, 02:10 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD