zlacker

>>robin_+(OP)
Don't be idiots. The FBI may say that whether or not they can get in:

1. If they can get in, now people - including high-value targets like journalists - will use bad security.

2. If the FBI (or another agency) has an unknown capability, the FBI must say they can't get in or reveal their capabilities to all adversaries, including to even higher-profile targets such as counter-intelligence targets. Saying nothing also risks revealing the capability.

3. Similarly if Apple helped them, Apple might insist that is not revealed. The same applies to any third party with the capability. (Also, less significantly, saying they can't get in puts more pressure on Apple and on creating backdoors, even if HN readers will see it the other way.)

Also, the target might think they are safe, which could be a tactical advantage. It also may exclude recovered data from rules of handling evidence, even if it's unusable in court. And at best they haven't got in yet - there may be an exploit to this OS version someday, and the FBI can try again then.

>>mmooss+gx
I would not recommend that one trust a secure enclave with full disk encryption (FDE). This is what you are doing when your password/PIN/fingerprint can't contain sufficient entropy to derive a secure encryption key.

The problem with low entropy security measures arises due to the fact that this low entropy is used to instruct the secure enclave (TEE) to release/use the actual high entropy key. So the key must be stored physically (eg. as voltage levels) somewhere in the device.

It's a similar story when the device is locked, on most computers the RAM isn't even encrypted so a locked computer is no major obstacle to an adversary. On devices where RAM is encrypted the encryption key is also stored somewhere - if only while the device is powered on.

>>coppsi+Zo1
RAM encryption doesn’t prevent DMA attacks and perofming a DMA attack is quite trivial as long as the machine is running. Secure enclaves do prevent those and they're a good solution. If implemented correctly, they have no downsides. I'm not referring to TPMs due to their inherent flaws; I’m talking about SoC crypto engines like those found in Apple’s M series or Intel's latest Panther Lake lineup. They prevent DMA attacks and side-channel vulnerabilities. True, I wouldn’t trust any secure enclave never to be breached – that’s an impossible promise to make even though it would require a nation-state level attack – but even this concern can be easily addressed by making the final encryption key depend on both software key derivation and the secret stored within the enclave.