Apple responded to FBI requirements. In court, the company will support Google, Facebook and Microsoft.

Apple continues to fight against the FBI request. To investigate the case of the massacre in San Bernandino and investigate links with the security services banned in Russia by the ISIS special services, data is required from the terrorist's iPhone 5C. The data on the smartphone is encrypted. To break encryption requires software tools - special firmware and other tools. The court demands to create similar products.

The head of Apple has already responded to the situation with an open letter . In a recent interview, he reiterated that terrorists were condemned in Cupertino, but they couldn’t actually be given a backdoor. Now Apple has released an official response for the trial. In it, the company described in detail the technical difficulties of creating a tool for hacking protection. In the meantime, information has spread in the media that the manufacturer will improve the durability of iPhone encryption protection to the extent that no one, even Apple, can crack it.

On December 2, 2015, a Pakistani-born couple made a terrorist attack, which killed 14 people and 24 were injured. The motives and possibilities of ties with the ISIL group are still clarifying the effect. To conduct an investigation, it is important to collect as much data as possible. One source could be the terrorist iPhone 5C office phone. But iOS 9 is installed on the phone, and the contents of the phone’s memory are encrypted. To unlock the phone you need a password, which the FBI does not have. Therefore, the security services asked Apple to unlock the phone. The word "unlock" the court order understands the creation of a tool to disable several security features of a smartphone. Apple sees in a similar attempt to get a backdoor.

The day before the last possible date, Apple filed a petition in court to challenge the requirement to create a tool. It is noticeable that the 65-page document was written quickly. This is felt immediately, in errors in the table of contents and typographical errors. The language is a little simple for a legal document. The essence of the argument is as follows: for a variety of reasons, the 1789 All Writs Act act cannot be used in this matter. And even if possible, the requirement is a violation of the first (freedom of expression) and fifth (due process) amendments to the US Constitution. Apple's answer contains technical assessments of the ability to create a backdoor.
')
Encryption enabled by default did not appear on the iPhone immediately, but only in the eighth version in the fall of 2014. Even then, the security services began to show anxiety and indignation at this fact. The FBI has proposed to introduce a front door for the special services. This caused criticism - experts regarded the avoidance of the term back door as a substitution of concepts.

Apparently from Apple's petition, in Cupertino consider that the case with the smartphone of the terrorist is a pretext. The document assumes that the US Department of Justice and the FBI are seeking the possibility of collecting data, and not just hacking one phone. If the backdoor falls into the wrong hands, then the confidential information of iPhone users can become the property of hackers, personal data collectors, foreign agents and arbitrary state surveillance. According to Apple, for the first time adopted in 1789, the All Writs Act does not give the court the necessary powers. Apple mentions other recent cases in which the courts are already thinking about hacking smartphones. Officials have already expressed the desire to use the operating system created to hack more copies of the iPhone. After the first, other court orders will follow, using the decision of this case as a precedent, Apple believes.

Requirements violate the right to freedom of expression, the document approves. The code is speech, and the state requires you to write a special code and sign it with a valid certificate. Thus, Apple is forced to say the opposite point of view of the company, which violates the first amendment of the US Constitution.

The company is distancing itself from the smartphone. The terrorist's Apple and iPhone are connected in the same way as General Motors and the criminal's car. Apple recalls that it does not own the data or phone, that it is a private company and does not set out to serve the public. Curiously, the document hints that the FBI should turn to other government agencies to hack the smartphone.

The document also repeats familiar facts : government agencies changed the iCloud password, which made it impossible to automatically backup smartphone content to the cloud. The document also contains specific assessments of what the court requires. Intelligence agencies need three things: disabling data auto-deletion after 10 incorrect password entries, disabling password time delays (they increase to an hour), and methods for entering passwords in a quick way using electronic means.

As stated by Apple, such software for the iPhone simply does not exist. Estimate the time to create it is difficult, because before this in the company did not write. But given a rough estimate: the creation, debugging and deployment will take from 2 to 4 weeks time 6-10 Apple engineers. The backdoor development team will require engineers from the central group of operating systems, a QA engineer, a project manager, and either a technical writer or a tool writer. Existing operating systems can not perform what the FBI requires. We'll have to write new code, and not just turn off features, the document says. This is due to the requirement to allow the entry of passwords in electronic form. You also have to either create a tool for brute force or document the backdoor protocol in detail so that the FBI can write brute-force. If everything is done remotely, then you need to configure secure data transfer methods. In this case, the entire methodology of the work should be recorded in case lawyers have any questions.

The firmware must go through the Apple QA department. The company's software ecosystem is complex and confusing. Changing one function often means a series of unexpected consequences. That is, you need to test on multiple devices: it will be extremely important to make sure that the new firmware does not accidentally delete the data on the device. Probably having problems. To solve them, some places in the code will be rewritten. Then testing of the revised versions will start again on a new one. Finally, the desired product will be received, which will be applied to the terrorist’s phone. If, for security reasons, at the end of this case, the hacking tools are destroyed, when the next request is received, the work process will start from scratch. So Apple's petition describes the complexity of creating a backdoor to bypass encryption.

A backdoor means just creating a separate operating system, since the system on the iPhone 5C chip does not have a special component to ensure the security of the Enclave. An SE is essentially a separate computer that manages security features. SE first appeared in A7 chips. On the iPhone, where Secure Enclave is, the number of retries and latency is controlled by a hardware component that is not subject to the underlying operating system. However, the SE firmware can be updated, and it can be done even in a locked phone, says former Apple security expert John Kelly. (The jailbreakers are familiar with the concept of DFU Mode in question.) This means that if the court binds, then Apple can hack into any of the existing smartphones - only the appropriate certificates are needed to sign the software.

Impenetrable protection, which no one can bypass, is possible if you remove the ability to update the firmware of a locked device. Apple is already working on a similar, says the New York Times. According to a newspaper source, engineers began working on such measures even before the attack on San Bernandino. Recently, Apple hired one of the developers of the encrypted Signal application. It is unclear whether the hiring of Frederick Jacobs is a coincidence or necessity due to recent events.

The terrorist physically destroyed his wife’s personal phone and phone. Is there any interest in the contents of the flash memory of the service smartphone? As the head of the San Bernandino police says , there is a fairly good chance that there is nothing significant in the phone. Nevertheless, he supports the FBI in deciphering the question: it would be unfair to leave possible clues to the families of the victims.

On the importance of the struggle for the privacy of these users, Apple CEO Tim Cook spoke at the annual meeting with shareholders. Among other things, mentioned the confrontation with the FBI. Cook said the refusal to crack a smartphone is right, and that Apple is not afraid to be adamant. In an interview with ABC News, Cook said that if necessary, the company would appeal to the higher courts. Apple is seriously preparing for the consideration of the case in the US Supreme Court.

The desire to support Apple in court was announced by the giants Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter. Earlier, many large figures and leaders of prominent companies spoke about the correctness of the decision. Here we are talking about amicus curiae, an independent expert in court. What is really behind the words of Apple and supporters? Perhaps companies really care about user security. Perhaps all this is marketing and public play. Be that as it may, many began to think and talk about the role of the state in information security and privacy. The last such surge of attention was only after the leaks of Edward Snowden.

Full scan of Apple’s response to trial