this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
92 points (97.9% liked)

Privacy

31814 readers
247 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I doubt it. That info is first party and not to be trusted since it is obviously marketing. Any third party article that backs up their claims?

[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Isn't it an open secret that powerful entities (like spying institutions) can get into pretty much every system if they have physical access? Why is this not plausible

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 12 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Because they would have to possess technology that doesn't exist in order to circumvent actual encryption without a key.

If I adequately encrypt my own data, and keep the keys a secret, I could hand my hard drive off to Microsoft and they could spend billions running all their AI clusters trying to crack it, and it would be a futile endeavor.

If the government had the technology to bypass encryption or quickly and inexpensively crack it, they'd use it for a whole lot more than unlocking smartphones. They could basically control the flow of Bitcoin on a whim with such tech.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No. You watch too many Movies. Yes there were attempts from state sponsored actors to weaken encryption algorithms. But is encryption easy to crack? No.

[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Dude what encryption are you talking about? Hardware storage encryption is just by now getting more widely adapted, the phone I used till a year ago didn't even support any encryption.

Sure, aes-256 with secure password only stored in your mind is quasi 100℅ safe, but that is not how most devices handle their "encryption".

If the key for the encryption is on the device, and either stored in an unencrypted TPM or unencrypted storage, its not a matter if breaking the encryption (quite impossible) but breaking the software/hardware (quite possible for someone with good enough forensics and skilled programmers)

Also also: encryption only helps if the device is off, which is seldom the case with phones.

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Isn't it an open secret that powerful entities (like spying institutions) can get into pretty much every system if they have physical access? Why is this not plausible

You stated in your original comment: "pretty much every system". So no, any modern phone if android or iOS is by default encrypted.

If the key for the encryption is on the device, and either stored in an unencrypted TPM or unencrypted storage, its not a matter if breaking the encryption (quite impossible) but breaking the software/hardware (quite possible for someone with good enough forensics and skilled programmers)

TPMs are by design encrypted.

Keys are not stored unencrypted at least not when you encrypt your storage with modern solutions and set it up reasonably. You use either your TPM to store the key or store it on the drive and have it encrypted by itself or use a KDF.

Also also: encryption only helps if the device is off, which is seldom the case with phones.

No this assumption is wrong. You still would need to circumvent the Login into the device which is mostly secured by a pin or password or biometrics.

[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you think TPMs are always encrypted, a key can be encrypted "with itself" and still be any use to you and android system pin is secure you are right. Might also believe in santa

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you think TPMs are always encrypted, a key can be encrypted "with itself" and still be any use to you and android system pin is secure you are right. Might also believe in santa

Not sure what you are rambling about the TPM.

Then prove that the Lockscreen is insecure.

[–] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How do you think encryption works?

What do you think does a lockscreen?

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How do you think encryption works?

What do you think does a lockscreen?

As i guessed. You are evading the question by again babbling nonsense and questioning my knowledge instead of actually proving anything you are saying.

You have shown that you have a bad understanding of what you are actually talking about (see the 'cracked' TPM discussion) and constantly shifting the discussion away from what you are saying : "Basically every device can be accessed without major problems" and what i am trying to explain to you.

You are acting in bad faith.

Bye

You keep referring to concepts like "Keys encrypted with itself" "Tpm are by design encrypted"

When you don't really say anything from value.

Not every "encryption" is the same.

When we talk about safe encryption we talk about file system level encryption of a system with safe algorithms like aes and a long enough random password (the key). this is safe.

If you store the key unencrypted on your phone, this encryption is no longer safe.

If you don't know the 16 random digit key it HAS to be on the phone and it CAN'T be encrypted "by itself" because you would no longer have any means to decrypt it.

It could be encrypted with a pin, but again, then its only as strong as the pin, and I don't know how long an only numeric pin would need to be to withstand modern brute forcing, but I doubt a relevant percentage of people have that kind of pin.

You can't explain how this would be safe, so you just come at me with russels teapot and say "well you can't prove its not safe" (which is true because I'm no security expert, but someone with enough knowledge could certainly) and lash out at me "acting in bad faith" because I don't jump through your hoops of passive aggressive misunderstanding.

All I can do is refer to experts, who found things like CVE-2022-20465 - a bug which allowed lockscreen bypass.

As you could have googled that yourself, but you ask this just to throw me off.

But if you want to keep using your google android and bitlocker win and feel safe, its not my problem.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 27 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

They imply they have active cracking abilities for all modern phones, that would be neat to see demonstrated.

It wouldn't even be hard, just invite third party reporter to bring in a bunch of phones with a capture the flag text file on them. Take each phone one by one behind a screen, break it, bam you don't have to give away any secrets but you prove that you can break the phone

[–] refalo@programming.dev 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And android only allows up to a 16 character password for some reason...

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That is mostly good enough, a password that does not get cracked if it is generated randomly.

[–] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

But how are you going to remember a 16 chars mix alpha num symbol password that's randomly generated?

Yeah the key space is vast but it's hard for most brains to handle it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why would they do this when they already make millions? The general public isn't buying their product. They'll only do private demos.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is competition amongst the phone cracking companies. And there's a limited amount of municipal money available. So they need to differentiate themselves from each other somehow.

There is good data that celibrite can break every phone out there right now, except for grapheneos... But I've heard no such data about this company. This means we can only speculate.

So if I was a municipality, and I wanted to decide who got my limited budget, I'd want to compare who's giving me the best value for money. So I would need some metric, some data point, some way to differentiate them. That's where reporting, would come in. The websites are public for a reason...

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 3 points 3 months ago

The websites are there to get a phone call. No municipality is spending this kind of money without a 3-quote requirement and demos. (Unless there is a preexisting relationship/renewal)

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Okay so a company whose entire business model relys on their ability to bypass smartphone security is going to start an arms race with the security community that will lead to their own product losing viability?

There's absolutely no incentive to do this. They have absolutely no reason to want smartphone security to improve, or to show off how they do what they do.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 5 points 3 months ago

I agree they don't want smartphone security to improve. But they also have to let their customers know which phones they can break.

[–] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 5 points 3 months ago

Next will be direct "lawful access" to our thoughts when the tech becomes available

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Phones are really not that hard to compromise from an encryption standpoint. All they need to do is break a pin most of the time. Also the pin is very predicable and probably can be pulled from a cloud service like google.

It is actually pretty horrifying to think about

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Or, you know, don't use pins, use passwords

[–] Zyansheep@programming.dev 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And use secure open source ROMs!

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago

Yeah that might be harder already considering thst, you know, most phone providers don't give you that option

[–] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

This looks like old news to me. Years ago I've read that three letter agencies can access phones without getting the access code or bio-metrics from the phone owner.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/14/1111618620/secret-service-erased-texts-from-two-day-period-spanning-jan-6-attack-watchdog-s

Somehow only people like the Secret Service are technically capable to break into your privacy while destroying evidence of their own.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 months ago

This isn't the secret service

[–] refalo@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Welp, encryption is optional boys and girls.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No it isn't as it is the default and can not be turned off (that's good)

[–] refalo@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Did you read the article? It doesn't matter if you have encryption, they can break it in under a day.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's not an article. That's sales pitch.

[–] refalo@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Are you implying the post title is inaccurate? If so how?

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Just look at the incentives. A company trying to sell a product is going to promise everything.

This is not a third party review of the effectiveness of this product.

So I do not believe sales pitches without evidence

[–] refalo@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is not a third party review of the effectiveness of this product.

Since they only supply devices to law enforcement, I doubt anyone will find such a review, but I don't think that means we should believe the product doesn't work, at least in theory it sounds quite feasible to me. There is some information available online given by law enforcement saying that the product does work, personally I think this is enough that we should believe it does work.

https://www.imore.com/iphone/documents-reveal-exactly-how-much-iphone-hacking-tool-graykey-costs-law-enforcement-including-subscription-costs-company-boasts-turbo-brute-force-feature-for-ios-that-can-access-locked-iphones

https://www.imore.com/unredacted-graykey-nda-outlines-instructions-given-law-enforcement

Yes this one is from the manufacturer but it does have more detail in how the device helped in individual cases if you are to believe what they say: https://www.grayshift.com/wp-content/uploads/101921_eb_Grayshift_AccessToTheTruth_V2-1.pdf

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] refalo@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago

While I do agree with you, not everyone will agree on the authenticity of a particular source. I guess there is simply no way to be certain what their capabilities really are.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

Are you implying that all Lemmy post titles are demonstrably true?

How's your object permanence?

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 months ago

True but that isn't a reason to give up. We need stronger encryption

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

If encryption doesn't matter to them, then at least one of these statements must be true of every phone they unlock:

  1. The device wasn't actually encrypted.
  2. The device was already in a decrypted state and we bypassed the screen lock and not drive encryption.
  3. We acquired the decryption keys somehow.
  4. We have technology that can break modern encryption without learning keys from another source or brute forcing.
  5. We have enough processing power to brute force a modern encryption algorithm.

#1 and #2 are possible because government contractors lie all the time about what they actually do. Pretending to decrypt stuff isn't outside the realm of possibility.

#3 is the biggest concern, especially if they are able to infer what the key is by uncapping silicon or something, because that would mean that any phone that could be unlocked by this company is as good as unencrypted since the device contains the keys in a retrievable format for some reason.

#5 and #6 are pretty much impossible, and such abilities would be far more profitable if used for just about anything but unlocking phones.

[–] Majestic@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

Lot of cope and denial in these threads. Yes the same-day is probably a rosy estimate based off people using 6 digit codes or something easy to crack, doesn't mean it's false or that they can't hypothetically target longer alpha-numeric passwords. For all we know they might not even be brute-forcing and could be conducting some sort of exploit that over time reveals the encryption keys themselves in some way.

I'm still very curious about the nature of the mechanisms of action. I assume they manage to bypass the basic lock-out against entering too many passcodes too quickly somehow which is what enables this. If throttling could be properly enforced (to say nothing of something like 10 attempts and it refuses all future attempts and erases the key type of thing) this type of attack wouldn't be practical for anyone using anything above a 6 digit numerical passcode in any reasonable timeframe. I wonder if they exploit wireless radios including cellular, wifi, bluetooth and force some code on the phones via these usually-on chips that enables this via exploiting problems in their architecture. Perhaps something that locks up, prevents functioning or resets certain checks via flooding parts of the hardware/software from these points of access. Or if it really is purely phy/log access to the lightning/usb-c port.

load more comments
view more: next ›