Apple weighs in on AntiSec's alleged FBI hack If, as they claim, the black hats of AntiSec did indeed hack into an FBI agent's laptop and lift unique device identifier (UDID) codes and some users' personal info from 12,367,232 iPhones and iPads, the feds did not get that user and device data from Cupertino. Or so Apple says. "The FBI has not requested this information …
I was reading a forum post a week or so ago, came across a link to a site that said 'Not sure if your Apple device has been compromised? Enter your UDID below and we'll check all known information sources to see if it's been published' - needless to say I filled in some random bollocks and clicked Enter, immediately a page came up with 'No your device has not been compromised.'
Well, if I'd entered a real UDID , it would be compromised now.
But a straight "These claims are totally false!" from any organization, corporate or government, sets a warning flag for me.
I'm just too used to the standard "We are investigating these allegations, and have no comment at this time." type comments they almost always make in situations like this.
Followed, of course, by an official statement months, or even years later, when nobody cares anymore.
> > Perhaps all we can do is speculate. We may never know.
> We'll likely have to wait for AntiSec's next leak – should it ever come –
> before we can get a better idea as to who's telling the truth in this entire imbroglio.
I read that to mean the the FBI will tell us whudunnit if and when.
That's their job innit?
Errmmm... What exactly IS their job?
I thought it was to deal with crimes that dogged the states in the United States because of difficulties with cross border crimes.
Does the FBI handle private data like that in the article?
I didn't read the full denial.
"But a straight "These claims are totally false!" from any organization, corporate or government, sets a warning flag for me....." When I was contracting for the civil service I was working one night when the Police cuffed some burglars in an office in the building next door. The next morning a reporter, acting on a duff tip from a copper, called our Head of Security and asked if we'd been burgled, which he immediately denied. The reporter then phoned our PR office and claimed our "instant denial" meant we were trying to cover something up. The PR droid came to ask the HoS how he could issue and instant denial? The HoS was able to because he was onsite that night whilst the maintenance work was being done and it was him that called the Police to tell them next door was being broken into!
Sometimes even government organisations can issue straight and immediate denials truthfully. Maybe the FBI could simply because they knew they hadn't issued Spankme an FBI laptop.
Probably because their claims are specific enough to check easily.
They said a specific, high ranking FBI official had a laptop stolen. It's a requirement for any US government employee to report lost or stolen laptop equipment within 24 hours of losing it. Not doing so is one of the few offenses for which you can be immediately fired, especially at his level. Story comes in, check for the filing, if it doesn't exist, flat denial.
They are banning the introduction of apps to the store that access the UDID. At some point existing ones that access it may be removed.
I think the only fairly recent device that won't be getting iOS 6 is the original iPad. 3GS and later will get it. How many Android phones introduced in 2009 will get JellyBean?
And how many iPhone 3GS will still work with an acceptable performance after the upgrade?
I had an iPhone 3G (admittedly an old model), and I could not get even near the IOS 4 update, it would totally cripple my device. Opening the contact list would take 4-5 seconds. I'm not saying this will happen to the 3GS, but providing the newest FW for everybody is not necessarily a good thing.
Until we see more info, there is hot air and empty truths from all 3 parties.
1) Antisec guys who released the small sample need to substantiate that these details did indeed come from an FBI employee's equipment
2) The FBI were VERY quick to deny any breach and then back-peddled on their official website saying "at this time there is no evidence" of a breach, showing they denied the leak before investigating for sure: http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-on-alleged-compromise-of-fbi-laptop
3) I have a feeling that Apple checked the leaked details against what they have given the FBI before and found a UDID which they had not actually passed on thus giving them much joy in being able to claim that the list did not come from them. At the same time their statement gives the impression that they have never passed on a similar list before which is what the sheep-population will go away thinking....
Who will get the egg on their face?
Personally I don't accept any are telling the whole truth.
Apple usually doesn't respond, the FBI answered/responded way, way too quickly for them and the US government ...
Who has the more believable track record? AntiSec, or the rest. Apple could have been under legal restrictions imposed by the FBI warrant not to disclose the disclosure, apart from the fact they employ a whole department well practiced in the art of saying nothing, often in a verbose manner.
US manufacturers sleep with the government, only Zimmermann of PGP fame had the guts to stand up to the US government harassment and give them the finger.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
