Saturday, March 19, 2016

Apple Computer vs U.S. Government on Encryption



Details of Cracking a Terrorist’s Iphone
The federal court order compelling Apple to help the FBI crack into a phone belonging to Syed Farook, one of the San Bernardino, California, attackers, is the latest example of a problem which has confounded investigators in the era of smartphones.
The Apple iPhone -- the one I am typing this on and the one on which you are likely reading this -- has software with a fairly simple and elegant security measure which can be enabled by the user. It is called the auto-erase function. Make 10 failed attempts to open a locked phone using the 4-digit user-created code and the iPhone and all the data it holds will be rendered inaccessible. Investigators believe this function was enabled on Farook's 5c model iPhone.
As described by the FBI in court filings, data on iPhones is encrypted. The 4-digit code you enter into your phone initiates a complex calculation which generates a unique key to unlock the data on the phone. No key, no data. The auto erase function, if triggered, will wipe out all the encryption keys rendering the data on the iPhone useless.
The iPhone has another feature to frustrate automated attempts to unlock a phone. A 4-digit code would produce 9,999 unique possibilities. Not a particularly big challenge by itself, but the code must be punched in manually. This would be time consuming enough, but after five failed attempts, the iPhone will require the the user to wait one minute before another attempt. After attempt six the wait is five minutes. Attempt seven and eight, 15 minutes and an hour after the ninth try. More time can be added in the software.
Due to the auto-erase feature, the FBI can't attempt to unlock the iPhone without risking losing all the data. The FBI wants Apple to alter the operating system just on Farook's phone to allow the FBI to bypass or disable the auto-erase function. It also wants Apple to alter the software to allow the test pass codes to be entered without punching the keys by using Bluetooth or other means to speed the process. And the FBI wants Apple to change the operating system to eliminate the delays caused by multiple attempts to unlock the phone.
Why can't the FBI change the operating system codes? Apple has designed its phones so that only Apple software with a special cryptographic signature can run on it. No other software will work.
What about iCloud? IPhones can save data to the cloud. The FBI believes Farook turned this function off sometime after Oct. 19, the date of the phone's last backup.
The is the scenario the FBI and intelligence offices have been concerned about since these security measures were first introduced. Google's Android phones also have encryption capabilities. It is why FBI Director James Comey has been pleading with the tech industry and Congress to come up with a means for investigators to find evidence.
Many of these security features hit the market after the disclosures released by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed government efforts to collect phone data in bulk.

Apple’s Response to the U.S. Government
Apple has vowed to challenge a judge's order to help the FBI access the cellphone of one of the San Bernardino shooters to aid in the investigation of the case.
Investigators obtained Syed Rizwan Farook's work phone with an authorized search warrant, but "has been unable to complete the search because it cannot access the phone’s encrypted content," federal prosecutors said in a court filing.
"Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily," prosecutors said.
But Apple responded early today with this statement to customers, signed by CEO Tim Cook:
A Message to Our Customers
The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand.
This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.
The Need for Encryption
Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.
All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.
Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.
For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.
The San Bernardino Case
We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.
When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.
We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.
Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.
The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.
The Threat to Data Security
Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.
In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.
The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.
The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.
We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.
A Dangerous Precedent
Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority. The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.
The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.
Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.
We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.
While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.
Tim Cook

The U.S. Government’s Order
A judge has ordered Apple to help the FBI access the cellphone of one of the San Bernardino shooters to aid in the investigation of the case.
Investigators obtained Syed Rizwan Farook's work phone with an authorized search warrant, but "has been unable to complete the search because it cannot access the phone’s encrypted content,” federal prosecutors said in a court filing.
“Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily,” prosecutors said.
Authorities hope to obtain “crucial evidence” on the phone about the terror attacks at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California on Dec. 2, the filing states.
Investigators hope to gain insight on who Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, may have contacted in plotting the attack. They are also interested to learn where the couple may have traveled to before and after the shooting, along with any other "pertinent" information.
The phone is owned by Farook's employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health. The department has given authorities consent to search the phone, but it's locked with a numeric password.
The FBI's attempts to crack the passcode have failed because Apple has set its phone systems with a function that automatically erases the access key and renders the phone "permanently inaccessible" after 10 failed attempts.
Investigators don't know if Farook enabled that function, but they are concerned that the phone may erase all of its contents.
Prosecutors insist that Apple has the ability to modify the software and ensure that the auto-erase function is turned off.
"This would allow the government multiple investigative attempts to determine the passcode in a timely manner, without fear that the data subject to search under the warrant would be rendered permanently inaccessible," a U.S. magistrate wrote.
A representative for Apple did not immediately return ABC News' request for comment.
Farook and Malik stormed the Inland Regional Center during a Department of Public Health training session and holiday party in December, killing 14 people and injuring 22. Nearly all of those who were killed or injured worked for the county.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Copying of Entertainment Content



Copying of Entertainment Content

Ever since voice recording became cheap and ubiquitous in the 1940’s -50’s, kids and others have been copying copyrighted music from public radio stations.  The fact that the content is being played on public media makes it generally available for listening and ostensibly for recording using available technology.  “If it’s in the air, and I’m clever enough to record it, no harm, no foul (more Later). The technology was originally a primitive wire recorder, and has now evolved into pretty sophisticated, and cheap, recording devices.  To be noted is the fact that the music is copyrighted, and is being copied from publicly available sources.

Is this legal?  Purists to this day question the legality of copying content over the air and maintain that the artist or music company should be paid for each copy made.  Of course this is impossible in practice, and copying publicly available copyrighted music is common.

Video recorders became generally available in the late 1970’s and people started recording copyrighted movies and other material from their TV sets.  Universal Studios sued Sony (Betamax) saying it was illegal to make copying of copyrighted movies available.  Sony won the case in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984, and it was established that copying movies from broadcast TV was not illegal.

Along came TVRO analog satellites in the early 1980’s which broadcast television, including copyrighted movies, in the clear for the first few years.  Then, HBO, Showtime and other so-called premium content providers scrambled their channels and began charging substantial fees to access them. The scramblers used M/A-Com technology out of Dallas at first, and later General Instruments encryption out of San Diego, who absorbed M/A-Com.  GI was also later absorbed by Motorola.

  These were the original Videocipher I and II encryption/scrambling systems.  They were quickly broken, and receivers which defeated the encryption became ubiquitous in the U.S.  Literally, nearly everyone with a big dish had a cracked system. The concept of free access to the airwaves is expressed as follows:  "The airwaves should belong to the people. If a TV signal comes trespassing onto my property, I should be free to do any damn thing I want with it, and it's none of the government's (or a monopolistic scrambler’s) business."
To correct this flaw (and to protect their monopoly status), General Instrument released an updated version of the descrambler called Videocipher II Plus in late 1991. Also known as VC-RS (for "renewable security"), the new units replaced the multiple chips in the unit with a single chip. Any effort to copy or replace the chip would disable the unit entirely. More importantly, the units included a renewable encryption system through the use of a "TvPass" smart-card (similar to a credit card). Should a breach in security occur, the encryption information on the cards can be changed quickly and inexpensively. Major programmers switched to the upgraded system with due speed, as HBO became the first programmer to shut off its consumer Videocipher II data stream on 19 October 1992. Other programmers quickly followed suit. Furthermore, HBO's satellite transmissions to Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere use the VC-RS technology. A full review of scrambling schemes and how they were broken is given in the following link:
http://www.wirelesscommunication.nl/reference/chaptr01/brdcsyst/dvb/psystems.htm
The battle between the hackers and the monopolies (GI, HBO and more and more service providers), continued.  Caribbean satellite TV pirates reversed engineered successive scrambler boxes.  GI used various ECM’s to counter.  A descriptive article on the situation in the Caribbean in the 1990’s is in the following link.  http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/2.08/satellite_pr.html. Particularly pertinent is the last paragraph entitled “The Will of the People”.
Many U.S. users simply switched to GI’s new Videocipher II technology and paid to descramble.  Trying to keep pace with the offshore hackers was simply too complex and time consuming.  Rates were at first somewhat reasonable, but there was a perceptible escalation of rates over time.  
The next stage was 4DTV which entered the digital and HD (high definition) world.  4DTV technology was originally developed in 1997 by General Instrument, now the broadband division of Motorola. The DigiCipher 2 encryption system is used in digital channels much like the VideoCipher and VideoCipher II systems were used for analog encrypted transmissions. Motorola abandoned 4dtv technology when they shut down the mapping stream on 12/31/2010 and converted most of the receivers in use to read one satellite only.
In the meantime, European hackers were also active and developed their own method to bypass the high costs of paid programming.  This link refers. http://www.satshop.co.uk/content60/Foreign-channel-packages---How-to-receive.html. This European aspect is included since some of this technology is used in modern methods to bypass high cost paid access of TV programming.
The demise of 4DTV basically ended the efficacy of the big dishes or BUD’s. in the U. S. There was still some free content in the Clarke belt, but all of the major content providers were scrambled on one or two satellites in the middle of the arc.  However, some services are still available for die-hard 4DTV aficionados.  http://skyvision.com/store/c-band_store_page1.html.
Free to air (FTA) service was also still available across the Clarke belt with a simple $100 FTA receiver.  This was really the “wild west”, with no programming guides, easy recording or time shifting.  All of the channels were out there, including Dish, Direct TV, etc., but these were scrambled using modern scrambling technology.  There were many channels in the clear if one had the wherewithal to look for them, but this effort was purely experimental.
In the meantime, another phenomenon emerged: P2P or peer to peer file sharing.  Peer-to-peer file sharing is the distribution and sharing of digital media using peer-to-peer (P2P) networking technology. P2P file sharing allows users to access media files such as books, music, movies, and games using a P2P software program that searches for other connected computers on a P2P network to locate the desired content.  The nodes (peers) of such networks are end-user computer systems that are interconnected via the Internet.
Peer-to-peer file sharing technology has evolved through several design stages from the early networks like Napster, which popularized the technology, to the later models like the BitTorrent protocol.
Several factors contributed to the widespread adoption and facilitation of peer-to-peer file sharing. These included increasing Internet bandwidth, the widespread digitization of physical media, and the increasing capabilities of residential personal computers. Users were able to transfer either one or more files from one computer to another across the Internet through various file transfer systems and other file-sharing networks.  By 2015, P2P has become ubiquitous, particularly among young users.  Movies, music and other digital content are easily and securely shared using the Torrents and VPN and proxy technology.
This link is to an article on a fairly sophisticated, but not uncommon, use of P2P by a modern user.  http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/pirated-tv-can-and-should-it-be-stopped/
Some historical background is also presented.

In 2015, where have all the “pirates” gone? 
They are still there, and still providing ways to bypass conventional high cost programming.  Since FTA is still available, it became possible to subscribe to the scrambled services, and then provide keys to other users who had FTA receivers.
But then someone said “we have this thing called the Internet.  Why bother with satellite dishes and receivers in the users’ hands, when we can stream the whole bloody lot over high speed Internet”.  At this writing, one can obtain IKS (keys) or IPTV (streaming services from several offshore sources, which opens up not only all of the so-called “premium” services offered by the content provider monopolies, but also foreign channels from all over the world.
As to the legality of IPTV, the user is still paying for IPTV service. Rather than paying huge sums ($180/mo and up) to the paid service providers like Dish, Direct TV, AT&T, Comcast, etc, consumers can buy an STB, pay for high speed Internet and pay an offshore company for IPTV access.  If the signal is on your property in the form of the Internet, and you are clever enough to catch it and decode it, no harm, no foul.  Various companies and government agencies have tried to catch and prosecute users, virtually to no avail. 
One such effort is the “six strike system”, which is an effort by several large movie studios to convince major ISP’s to issue warnings to users of Torrents and others downloading copyright movies.  This is a sham which has not been enforced, and which can easily be defeated by use of VPN’s and/or proxies.  This link refers.
  https://torrentfreak.com/six-strikes-anti-piracy-scheme-is-a-sham-filmmaker-say-150513/
The upshot of all this is that free exchange of entertainment material will continue, whether over the air, over the Internet, or by someone physically handing a copyright DVD to a friend.  Is such activity of dubious legality?  Possibly, but not proven.  Is it ubiquitous?  Absolutely.  Is it stoppable?  No way!

Details concerning IPTV are given below:
What is needed for IPTV?

MAG 254 -- Set Top Box -- IPTV OTT Linux TV Box -- Streaming Media Player -- Full Hd TV            $94 on Amazon

D-Link Wireless Dual Band N600 (300/300 mbps) USB Wi-Fi Network Adapter (DWA-160)            $23  (only wireless dongle that worked for me)  (You can also wire in broadband)

Iptv4less service, $70 per year, 920 total channels.  580 English (710 Spanish) language VOD http://www.ioffer.com/i/1-month-subscription-ipguys-iptv-mag-box-250-254-avov-605609234 (Video on demand) movies.

 (Do not use IKSCLUB. They are a scam.  Use IPguys instead. They provide the same  service and seem quite capable and responsive).
Check to ensure channel line up is not the same as IPTV4less


    
Dallas, Texas, October 7, 2015
Ray Gruszecki




Sunday, March 13, 2016

A Short History of Computation



A Short History of Computation
My educational background is in Chemical Engineering, and I got my degree in 1959, before computers or even calculators were available.  We did our engineering computations using the slide rule – “accuracy to two decimal places”.  If you say “how primitive”, 15 years prior to 1959, I was doing homework by kerosene lamplight.  It was wartime, and the electrical grid was interrupted before it reached my town. 
Log-Log Duplex Decitrig Engineering Slide rule



      
Suffice it to say, other than relatively primitive adding machines, not very many automated computational tools were available through the 1950’s.  Of course the ground work for future computing had already been laid by Alan Turing, Johnny von Neumann, and others in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
I saw my first mechanical calculators in 1960 after I joined Caltex (then known as the California Texas Oil Corporation) in New York City.  These were Marchant and Monroe calculators.  They could divide!!!  The Marchant was the more advanced.

 Marchant
 
 



The first (pocket?) electronic calculators appeared in the early 1970’s and were very expensive at first, over $400 for the first models.  This would be $2500 in 2016 dollars.
   

This first actual computer that I worked with was the IBM 704 in 1960.  The 04 stood for a whopping 4k of memory.  We paid $600 per hour to use it.  It was easier for us engineers to learn how to program and key punch the cards for our refinery simulations than for computer programmers (if there were any then), to learn engineering.
The IBM 704 used vacuum tubes and took half of a Manhattan skyscraper floor.  It was housed on the 48th floor of the Union Carbide Building, which I always thought of being at Vanderbilt and 47th street, but the actual address is 270 Park Avenue.  This is the present corporate headquarters of J.P. Morgan Chase, whom I later worked for in Dallas for nearly 10 years.
We would carry large cans of pre-punched computer cards and magnetic tapes across the street from our offices at 380 Madison Avenue.  A special “breadboard” would need to be inserted into the IBM 704 for the “engineering” run to distinguish it from an “accounting” run.  We would then carry heavy reams of computer output back to our office for analysis and further action.  Seemingly a lot of work, but it beat having to do laborious manual “stock balances” of complex refineries by manual iterations on large handwritten (and erased, and erased) sheets of paper.

 
https://www.google.com/search?q=von+neumann&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 The next computers that I worked with in New York were the IBM 7090 and 7094, successors to the 704, that employed transistors for the first time and were much faster  and more powerful than the 704.  (As powerful as a 2016 watch maybe, but no comparison can be made because the technology in my watch didn’t exist in the ‘60’s).  These 709x mainframes were no longer in the Union Carbide or J.P. Morgan Chase Building, and they were less expensive for Caltex to use.  I must admit that Caltex was not far behind using the latest computer technology, at least in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Then came the IBM 360 and 370 mainframe series and smaller offshoots like the 1400 series, System/3 series and other lower end main frame type computers.  The IBM Series 360’s were very successful.  The following is an interesting commentary on the capability of these mainframe computers. 
“High performance models came later. The 1967 System 360 Model 91 could do up to 16.6 million instructions per second.[3] The larger 360 models could have up to 8 MB of internal main memory,[4] though main memory that big was unusual—a more typical large installation might have as little as 256 KB of main storage, but 512 KB, 768 KB or 1024 KB was more common. Up to 8 megabytes of slower (8 microsecond) Large Capacity Storage (LCS) was also available.”
   Remember these were mainframes.  My Iphone CPU runs at 1.4ghz, has 1gb of ram and 120gb of storage, it also has cameras, voice and video recording and myriad other features only dreamed about in the past.
 Also, we put a man on the moon in 1969 using this type of technology.   Quoting from a “Computer Weekly” article, 
“The so-called Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) used a real time operating system, which enabled astronauts to enter simple commands by typing in pairs of nouns and verbs, to control the spacecraft. It was more basic than the electronics in modern toasters that have computer controlled stop/start/defrost buttons. It had approximately 64Kbyte of memory and operated at 0.043MHz.”
High end mainframes continued with the IBM 8000 series, 390 series, and finally the Z series, Watson natural language machine and other current offerings.
I had moved from engineering planning and supply disciplines to the computer division of Caltex.  It was not yet called IT.  I worked with mainframe and mini computing for several years in New York, and then in Dallas.  The first personal computer I used was the IBM 5150 class, but it was actually a Wang knock-off.  The first PC I bought/built in the mid 1980’s was an IBM XT clone with a 20mb hard drive.  I didn’t think I could ever use 20mb, but I splurged.  Cost was about $1500, and I built and sold similar machines to my brother-in-law in Massachusetts and to a preacher friend in East Texas.  Another bookmaker friend of mine in Dallas had already obtained an XT machine.  These three individuals were pioneers of personal computing.  My brother-in-law used the XT and primitive spreadsheets to represent his large volume gas station business.  My preacher friend published a weekly church newspaper.  My bookie friend used the computer to streamline his dealings.   All three saw the potential of personal computing early on and made use of it at a time when one needed to be creative just to effectively use a computer. 


The first PC’s were DOS based.  They had no GUI (Graphical User Interface).  Also, there was no world wide web as we now know it until the early 1990’s when Tim Berners-Lee and others at CERN in Switzerland proposed a new protocol for information distribution. This protocol became the World Wide Web in 1991.  Almost simultaneously, Marc Andreesen and a co-worker Eric Bina created a user-friendly browser with integrated graphics that would work on a wide range of computers. The resulting code was the Mosaic Web browser, later Netscape and later overrun by Microsoft and others.  I still remember being amazed hearing Andreesen’s voice over the infant internet describing his Mosaic browser. 

The Internet itself had been around since the 1960’s and I was aware of it early on.  In order to use it, one needed to learn Unix and pay a high rate to connect to a central server that could run it.  In Texas, this would be UT Austin at $50 per month.  Too rich for my blood at the time.  The first dialup Internet service I had in the late 1980’s was Delphi, which provided primitive early email service and other DOS based bulletin board and other information services.

Some links on the history of the Internet:
 

  
I built an Intel 386 based machine in 1988 for personal use, and although not always chasing the most recent technology, I managed to stay close, replacing and enhancing computers as technology advanced.  I had started building computers from components in the late 1980’s, and I continued for about 10 years.  After that, it became more economic to buy a system, enhance it and sell it at a markup. To some extent I still continue this process, but now mainly with laptops rather than large desktop machines.  I still offer diagnostic and repair services mainly for friends and family. 
After taking early retirement from Caltex in 1988, I entrepreneur-ed both in the computer field and in non-computer fields until 1995.  I then consulted in IT support for several companies, including Denton County, Texas, BancTec, LSG Sky Chefs and Chase Manhattan, who hired me in 2000.  I left J.P. Morgan Chase in 1988 and continued in the IT field in a semi-retired capacity.
Ray Gruszecki
March, 2016