04-01-16 01:31 AM
124 ... 345
tools
  1. anon(9870901)'s Avatar
    The only malicious things on my Priv are my Gmail accounts and Android itself! Just jokes. Lol!
    03-30-16 08:10 PM
  2. sorinv's Avatar
    What is ICs?
    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 PM
  3. sorinv's Avatar
    CB app sometimes hangs... :-) ^

    •   There's a Crack in the Berry right now...   •
    It depends on how good your wi-fi is.
    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 PM
  4. sorinv's Avatar
    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.
    Yep. Same goes with those using iphones. They may not necessarily use them because they need apps or think they are private or secure. They use them because they have little choice between android and ios.
    03-30-16 09:31 PM
  5. donnation's Avatar
    Yep. Same goes with those using iphones. They may not necessarily use them because they need apps or think they are private or secure. They use them because they have little choice between android and ios.
    Yeah sure I won't disagree with that. But even if the choice was BB10 I don't think it's enough to make the majority of users consider switching from either OS. Until a compelling choice is given those are the options.
    sorinv likes this.
    03-30-16 10:06 PM
  6. sorinv's Avatar
    Yeah sure I won't disagree with that. But even if the choice was BB10 I don't think it's enough to make the majority of users consider switching from either OS. Until a compelling choice is given those are the options.
    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 01:59 AM
  7. Superfly_FR's Avatar
    Attachment 395711

    •   There's a Crack in the Berry right now...   •
    These guys have "best practices" most of us don't even figure.
    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 AM
  8. Superfly_FR's Avatar
    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.
    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.
    03-31-16 04:30 AM
  9. donnation's Avatar
    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.
    Again I don't disagree with you. As far as your Mac goes that was a bad purchase. The Macbook is a first generation product and isn't meant to do anything but light work. Honestly you should have gotten a better spec'd air to do anything more than that.
    03-31-16 05:47 AM
  10. donnation's Avatar
    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.
    I'm not talking about what a device is capable of (except for the Priv). What I meant was that people throw the word security around when its really just a word to say like "productivity" simply because Blackberry puts an emphasis on security. It would be like if Blackberry said "our phones will make you wealthy." There would be a massive swell in here from people who said they use a Blackberry because it makes them wealthy.

    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 AM
  11. jallister's Avatar
    No, it was about Apple trying to portray the iPhone as being a secure device and trying to play hardball with LE, Now they're scrambling cause the FBI hacked into their supposedly secure phone without Apple's help LOL.
    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 AM
  12. jallister's Avatar
    It's much more convenient for the US government, NSA and FBI if Cellebrite did it. It utterly humiliates Apple. It wouldn't be as bad for Apple if the NSA did it, although they most likely have the capability.
    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 AM
  13. sorinv's Avatar
    Again I don't disagree with you. As far as your Mac goes that was a bad purchase. The Macbook is a first generation product and isn't meant to do anything but light work. Honestly you should have gotten a better spec'd air to do anything more than that.
    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 AM
  14. sorinv's Avatar
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by sorinv; 03-31-16 at 08:19 AM.
    03-31-16 08:03 AM
  15. menshawy's Avatar
    What does that say about Apple's security?

    Says nothing as on the consumer ground. Guess what?


    NOBODY CARES FOR SECURITY!!

    Or otherwise BlackBerry 10 would have succeeded because it's built with security in mind.

    Posted via CB10


    Posted via CB10
    03-31-16 08:09 AM
  16. Superfly_FR's Avatar
    Any phone that runs Android isn't private
    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
    donnation likes this.
    03-31-16 08:18 AM
  17. sorinv's Avatar
    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
    That assumes that the NSA, who knows what Qualcomm embedded in that chip (and most likely BlackBerry doesn't know) does not want access to your Priv.

    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 AM
  18. Superfly_FR's Avatar
    That assumes that the NSA, who knows what Qualcomm embedded in that chip (and most likely BlackBerry doesn't know) does not want access to your Priv.
    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 paranoļa 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 AM
  19. jallister's Avatar
    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.
    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.
    03-31-16 10:29 AM
  20. whatsever's Avatar
    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?”

    NYT reports San Bernardino iPhone hacked!-fbi.jpg
    raino, buwee and Superdupont 2_0 like this.
    03-31-16 10:34 AM
  21. MikeX74's Avatar
    Why do you keep insisting these are generalizations...everyone I know with an iPhone buys them because of the apps and the so called "status" LOL
    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 PM
  22. buwee's Avatar
    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.
    I won't waste my time arguing with you - you can believe what you want as can I, don't get me wrong, I actually have 2 of them but to me they are just toys. I buy them because I like playing with ALL the different platforms. Oh ya, I don't do anything sensitive on the the iphones or the Androids & that includes the Priv
    03-31-16 08:40 PM
  23. sorinv's Avatar
    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 paranoļa a bit and remember BlackBerry pretty much invented phones security. They certainly not use one factor "anything"
    Yes, but BlackBerry did not invent IC security nor does it design chips. They used to have an Ottawa group in 2000 that used to do that. Not any more and not for a long time. They jyust buy chips.
    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 AM
  24. sorinv's Avatar
    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.
    I am with you and with apple on this one. I don't think the government should have access to anyone's phones. These days the phone is pretty much part of our brain and personality. It's not like giving them access to your home with a warrant. It's more like letting them access your brain with a warrant.
    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 AM
124 ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Earnings report prediction
    By laid-back in forum BBRY
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-01-16, 03:29 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-28-16, 02:10 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD