Feb 19, 2016 - The WAN Show Document

[LinusTech]

 

 

 

Soundcloud Link:

 

 

 

Main News Topics

 

[kameshss]

Missed the WAN Show today.

My topic is covered! Yay!

 

And you spelled my name wrong again, that's okay.  But this time, it's not bad.

[XORYOUYOU]

@Slick  as I tried to explain here :

They use the polarization of the data point as 4th and its "strength" or how big the point is as 5th dimension.

 

Do you have a link to the Verge article since I linked to the research paper and dont know what verge wrote about it.

[abhigyan001]

My topic was covered  but the name wasn't mentioned. No problem.

 

I would like to add a few things about the Freedom 251. 

Firstly, it has a qHD display, like 540p. On 18th, the date of sale which was actually the booking date. The phones are booked and would be delivered by 30th of June. Now for the booking, the booking started at 6 AM and the website saw upto 600,000 hits per second and the sale had to be shut down to prevent any loss to the servers, this happened and 12 PM. The next day website opened again with a restriction of only one device per user. The company also answered for the low price and told that the manufacturing costs 2500 Rupees but due to governments tax waivers the could manage to sell it for so cheap.

The original booking was supposed to be from 18-21 Feb but was shut down on 19 because there were already 50,000,000 bookings. The company has told to give the device to 2,500,000 bookings. The lucky 2,500,000 users will now receive an email from the company with the link where they have to pay.

[RedRound2]

The guy who posted error 53 was a repost and mine was the original one. welp

 

i guess better luck next time

[Master Disaster]

@Linus Tech My dad took me on space mountain when i was a little kid and it traumatised me too. I still dont enjoy roller coasters to this day, I've never really got over it.

[Chag4]

@LinusTech My childhood trauma was watching 2001 and planet of the apes too early. I don't even think I watched all of them, and I remember next to nothing. I have refused to ever watch them again. (I know that's stupid, but thinking about them gives me the heebeegeebees.)
Now I can't help but associate the science fiction genre with horror. I know it's not all horror, I watched some stuff I like, but I just associate it with horror, which makes me rather reluctant to watch or read Sci-fi.

It doesn't help that I sat down to watch Prometheus without knowing it was part of the Alien series, and by the synopsis I had read I thought it would be an interesting movie about alien culture. How wrong I was.

[msmafra]

On Windows I've replaced The Start Menu With ClassicShell (Is Free). Good to know that third parties are doing better job than Microsoft. I also have Startisback (its Payed). Both really do not crash as Microsoft's new Start Menu.

[Razor512]

http://9to5mac.com/2016/02/19/apple-doj-response-fbi-backdoor/

 

It seems that the FBI is intentionally crippling all non-backdoor methods of getting access to the data in order to justify a backdoor.

 

Quote

The Apple ID passcode linked to the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino terrorists was changed less than 24 hours after the government took possession of the device, senior Apple executives said Friday. If that hadn’t happened, Apple said, a backup of the information the government was seeking may have been accessible…

The executives said the company had been in regular discussions with the government since early January, and that it proposed four different ways to recover the information the government is interested in without building a back door. One of those methods would have involved connecting the phone to a known wifi network.

 

Basically, the attacker had a crap password, so the FBI got in easily. They had access to old backups (about 1 month old), and in order to get the latest data, they just needed to connect the device to a known WiFI network (many tools available to spoof that), and it would have updated the backups.

The FBI instead, likely purposefully changed it in order to push for their agenda to ban encryption.

 

If they can get even a small amount of case law established, then this can be used as a platform to support continued degradation of the ability of law abiding people to use encryption. This will not stop anyone who wants proper encryption from using it since it is open source and free.

[Counter-Strike Player]

1 hour ago, Razor512 said:

http://9to5mac.com/2016/02/19/apple-doj-response-fbi-backdoor/

 

It seems that the FBI is intentionally crippling all non-backdoor methods of getting access to the data in order to justify a backdoor.

 

 

Basically, the attacker had a crap password, so the FBI got in easily. They had access to old backups (about 1 month old), and in order to get the latest data, they just needed to connect the device to a known WiFI network (many tools available to spoof that), and it would have updated the backups.

The FBI instead, likely purposefully changed it in order to push for their agenda to ban encryption.

 

If they can get even a small amount of case law established, then this can be used as a platform to support continued degradation of the ability of law abiding people to use encryption. This will not stop anyone who wants proper encryption from using it since it is open source and free.

Interesting. I seriously hope that technologically-minded judges will analyze these discussions and rule appropriately. I made a post last night on @LinusTech's assumption that "the fappening" was based only on social engineering...which I questioned and considered relevant to the current situation.

[Roawoao]

2 hours ago, Razor512 said:

http://9to5mac.com/2016/02/19/apple-doj-response-fbi-backdoor/

 

It seems that the FBI is intentionally crippling all non-backdoor methods of getting access to the data in order to justify a backdoor.

 

 

Basically, the attacker had a crap password, so the FBI got in easily. They had access to old backups (about 1 month old), and in order to get the latest data, they just needed to connect the device to a known WiFI network (many tools available to spoof that), and it would have updated the backups.

The FBI instead, likely purposefully changed it in order to push for their agenda to ban encryption.

 

If they can get even a small amount of case law established, then this can be used as a platform to support continued degradation of the ability of law abiding people to use encryption. This will not stop anyone who wants proper encryption from using it since it is open source and free.

Not true the backups stopped for greater than 1 month when before they were automatic. So the obvious conclusion is that the terrorist turned off the automatic backup a month or so before the attack. If this was turned off then it would never just turn itself back on unless Apple has some secret backdoor. As a result the FBI would logically just change the iCloud password to prevent anyone else from logging in online that the attacker may have shared the password with. The news articles are trying to spin it to say that the FBI is trying to push for an encryption agenda because that drives them clicks.

 

Turning off backups is as simple as turning the green backup to iCloud switch to the off state in the settings menu.

 

A repeat of part of my post from the main thread for the FBI v Apple topic,

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/apple-says-investigators-ruined-most-promising-way-to-access-terrorist-data/

Quote

"They recommended that the iPhone be connected to a known Wi-Fi network such as one in Farook's home or workplace and plugged into a power source so it could automatically create a new iCloud backup overnight. If successful, that backup might have contained the missing information between the October backup and December 2, when the San Bernardino massacre occurred."

Only problem with Apple's idea is that they already knew it wouldn't work because he turned off the Automatic backups before and without the pin code it wouldn't magically start automatic backups later.

Quote

"Apple has already provided the FBI with access to Farook's iCloud backups through mid-October, when he apparently stopped backing up his phone to iCloud servers. "

So while the article says they never knew if it would work because of the FBI's change of the iCloud password the opposite is true that it was perfectly logical to no expect any new backups if the user turned them off intentionally months before. I highly doubt that Apple can reason that Farook instead of just turning off the iCloud backup in the phone settings took the effort to never go near his home or workplace wifi and to never charge his phone at home or work.

[Razor512]

I also wanted to add that what the FBI wants, is a clear violation of the 13th amendment, as they want them to engage in the work necessary to circumvent their own security measures.

 

Quote

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

 

[Roawoao]

10 minutes ago, Razor512 said:

I also wanted to add that what the FBI wants, is a clear violation of the 13th amendment, as they want them to engage in the work necessary to circumvent their own security measures.

I don't think the anti-slavery amendment applies to a mega corporation criticized for some time for not stopping slave like conditions overseas (ironically they were better than most).

[Razor512]

2 hours ago, Roawoao said:

I don't think the anti-slavery amendment applies to a mega corporation criticized for some time for not stopping slave like conditions overseas (ironically they were better than most).

 

It falls under the involuntary servitude clause, if the order goes through then it would mean that the government has forced a group of developers undergo the labor needed to create a special version of the OS in order to bypass a good portion of the security. Such a ruling is the very essence of involuntary servitude.

 

Furthermore it does not fall under the criminal aspect as encryption is not a crime (the FBI instead is using this angle to push for an indirect ban on encryption.

 

Remember, in the past, they tried to push for a ban on encryption that they could not break, and it failed, as shown here.

 

 

 

An indirect method to achieve their goal, would be to have a court order to be successful, thus forcing a company to perform the actions desired of them during their original push to ban encryption. It failed before because modern encryption cannot have a back door. It uses time as a means for security rather than a super secret process of encrypting the data. If the government is successful in forcing companies to weaken their security, then it will essentially force other companies to step back 100+ years in terms of encryption technology in order to comply.

 

The way that it can work to slowly eat away at encryption is for it to first apply to apple where they make them bypass a few of their security functions so that the pin number may be cracked.

Next they find a device which has a strong alphanumeric password that cannot be cracked in this lifetime, and force a company to break it or face criminal charges. This then allows them to start using overly strong punishments in order to indirectly force compliance and make companies preemptively use weak encryption with a backdoor to avoid criminal charges should the government come knocking.

 

It is basically this form of achieving compliance and is used constantly by the government; overly severe punishments to deter a specific type of "crime".

 

 

 

 

Basically once one company that is unable to comply, gets hit hard by the government, other companies will begin to design or change their products so that they can comply so that they don't end up saddles with penalties and criminal charges.

 

Their new attack is to eventually be able to say "Hey, you can use any encryption you want, but if we want access and you can't give it, then ti is to the gulag for you".

If we adapt this to the First Amendment, then the conversation can go like this "I respect your first amendment right, you can say whatever you want, but if you say anything that I don't like then I will break your mouth". Most people faces with such a scenario might just choose to self censor, and the FBI wants that for encryption.

[Roawoao]

22 minutes ago, Razor512 said:

 

It falls under the involuntary servitude clause, if the order goes through then it would mean that the government has forced a group of developers undergo the labor needed to create a special version of the OS in order to bypass a good portion of the security. Such a ruling is the very essence of involuntary servitude.

 

Furthermore it does not fall under the criminal aspect as encryption is not a crime (the FBI instead is using this angle to push for an indirect ban on encryption.

 

Remember, in the past, they tried to push for a ban on encryption that they could not break, and it failed, as shown here.

 

An indirect method to achieve their goal, would be to have a court order to be successful, thus forcing a company to perform the actions desired of them during their original push to ban encryption. It failed before because modern encryption cannot have a back door. It uses time as a means for security rather than a super secret process of encrypting the data. If the government is successful in forcing companies to weaken their security, then it will essentially force other companies to step back 100+ years in terms of encryption technology in order to comply.

 

the way that it can work to slowly eat away at encryption is for it to first apply to apple where they make them bypass a few of their security functions so that the pin number may be cracked.

Next they find a device which has a strong alphanumeric password that cannot be cracked in this lifetime, and force a company to break it or face criminal charges. This then allows them to start using overly strong punishments in order to indirectly force compliance and make companies preemptively use weak encryption with a backdoor to avoid criminal charges should the government come knocking.

 

It is basically this form of achieving compliance and is used constantly by the government; overly severe punishments to deter a specific type of crime "crime".

 

 

Basically once one company that is unable to comply, gets hit hard by the government, other companies will begin to design or change their products so that they can comply so that they don't end up saddles with penalties and criminal charges.

Apple is not just a small group of developers it is a mega corporation. I don't think the court order is directed towards specific developers working at Apple and with what the corporation is compelled to do they will still be paying the employee's that carry out the action. So no its not slavery.

[Razor512]

Money is the fruits of your labor, if the government is forcing apple to comply, then they are forcing money to be spent, labor to be done, and time to be spent complying.

A cascade of involuntary servitude is still involuntary servitude. Ultimately, complying will require a developer to put the work into doing what the government wants.

[Roawoao]

1 hour ago, Razor512 said:

Money is the fruits of your labor, if the government is forcing apple to comply, then they are forcing money to be spent, labor to be done, and time to be spent complying.

A cascade of involuntary servitude is still involuntary servitude. Ultimately, complying will require a developer to put the work into doing what the government wants.

The developer could quit Apple if they didn't want to work under a company that listened to government court orders. I doubt anyone would the pay is so good and the benefits are so high. Not slavery if your getting 100k+ benefits +401k +stocks +free shuttle bus + tons of other jobs you can get with said work experience.

 

Apple is a mega corporation, the 13th amendment is not for mega corporations but enslaved people (The application of it is very restricted in law). Apple if they really wanted to could literally just hop up and leave even pay for moving expenses for everyone who wanted to come along for the ride and find placement for anyone who wanted to stay. They have a lot of money to say the least and have global offices world wide and could move HQ and everything if they really wanted to. (it would be extremely costly but Apple was the most valuable company for quite some time) 

 

Huh. There is no cascade of slavery I don't think you understand how slavery works. 

[LAwLz]

The phone has a qHD display. The small q stands for quarter, not quad (QHD). So it is 960x540.

[jmababa]

12 hours ago, Roawoao said:

The developer could quit Apple if they didn't want to work under a company that listened to government court orders. I doubt anyone would the pay is so good and the benefits are so high. Not slavery if your getting 100k+ benefits +401k +stocks +free shuttle bus + tons of other jobs you can get with said work experience.

 

Apple is a mega corporation, the 13th amendment is not for mega corporations but enslaved people (The application of it is very restricted in law). Apple if they really wanted to could literally just hop up and leave even pay for moving expenses for everyone who wanted to come along for the ride and find placement for anyone who wanted to stay. They have a lot of money to say the least and have global offices world wide and could move HQ and everything if they really wanted to. (it would be extremely costly but Apple was the most valuable company for quite some time) 

 

Huh. There is no cascade of slavery I don't think you understand how slavery works. 

Or they could do what Google is doing putting their main assets in a country where US government couldn't touch em like China.

[Razor512]

The issue with options such as the developers quitting, is that it is what is known as a non-option.

The same happened with actual slavery in the past, the slaves could stop following the orders, but there would be a wide range of bad consequences for them (often death, or torture then death).

Involuntary servitude happens if you are being forced to perform a specific task and if you choose not to do it, then bad things happen to you due to the actions of other people.

(Do this or we will lock you in a cage for contempt of court)

 

[xnamkcor]

X =10

P = Pro

Windows 10 Pro = Windows XP.

 

 

 

 

[Techie3]

In terms of windows search (at least until Microsoft figures everything out) I would recommend "Everything Search" which has been a lifesaver for me on more than a few occasions.  It's free and indexes a drive incredibly fast, after which you can find any file (or folder) on your drive almost instantly.  I'm a bit new to the forums so I don't know if I can post a link to the website but if you search for "Everything Search" or "voidtools" you'll find it.  Hope that helps anyone else with the windows search problem.

[maksakal]

The argument of the government having a masterkey is nonsense, the FBI is right in calling this a marketingstunt, which it is.

 

Every firmware file has to be signed with an SHSH and an APTicket or the device won't accept the firmware. Every time you flash a new firmware to a phone iTunes will contact the signing server located at gs.apple.com and try to obtain a valid signature for a specific file before it is flashed to the device. This is the reason why it is impossible to downgrade the firmware of any iOS device.

 

The signing can be set depending on the model but (as seen with the developers pre-release program) it can also be set per device. So Apple might make a firmware which has all the security features disabled but in the end they still get final say over which device is allowed to run that firmware. As long as they do not allow signing of that file for that specific device, the device won't accept it.

 

As for the future. The ruling of the court is really specific, it calls the specific device by model, serialno. and IMEI. There is no doubt that this ruling concerns that device and that device only. The court also ruled that this case is severe enough to merit these actions. So in future cases if the FBI knocks on Apple's door again they can easily say that:

 

1. They are not sure about the severity and

2. the ruling was about that device only.

 

So in every future case the FBI would have to get a new court order and the court will look at the severity of the case and rule accordingly. So this has everything we citizens want, it has oversight by an independent impartial party (the court) and also it has the FBI doing their thing without having blanket powers.

 

So what seems to be the problem then?

[xnamkcor]

6 minutes ago, maksakal said:

The argument of the government having a masterkey is nonsense, the FBI is right in calling this a marketingstunt, which it is.

 

Every firmware file has to be signed with an SHSH and an APTicket or the device won't accept the firmware. Every time you flash a new firmware to a phone iTunes will contact the signing server located at gs.apple.com and try to obtain a valid signature for a specific file before it is flashed to the device. This is the reason why it is impossible to downgrade the firmware of any iOS device.

 

The signing can be set depending on the model but (as seen with the developers pre-release program) it can also be set per device. So Apple might make a firmware which has all the security features disabled but in the end they still get final say over which device is allowed to run that firmware. As long as they do not allow signing of that file for that specific device, the device won't accept it.

 

As for the future. The ruling of the court is really specific, it calls the specific device by model, serialno. and IMEI. There is no doubt that this ruling concerns that device and that device only. The court also ruled that this case is severe enough to merit these actions. So in future cases if the FBI knocks on Apple's door again they can easily say that:

 

1. They are not sure about the severity and

2. the ruling was about that device only.

 

So in every future case the FBI would have to get a new court order and the court will look at the severity of the case and rule accordingly. So this has everything we citizens want, it has oversight by an independent impartial party (the court) and also it has the FBI doing their thing without having blanket powers.

 

So what seems to be the problem then?

Because defeating locks on phones is impossible. Right? It's not like they can just hack a version of the iOS that has no personal file encryption to work on other phones.

[maksakal]

2 minutes ago, xnamkcor said:

Because defeating locks on phones is impossible. Right? It's not like they can just hack a version of the iOS that has no personal file encryption to work on other phones.

With currently technology and knowledge, they can't. The bootloader is hardware locked and the phone won't boot without a valid key, the end.