Apple Denies FBI Had Access To UDIDs 104
First time accepted submitter WIn5t0n writes "Just a day after the alleged leak of 12million Apple UDID's, both Apple and FBI have denied the story that Anonymous, a global hacking community, gained access to the files by hacking into an FBI laptop through a Java vulnerability. Earlier this morning the FBI claimed that, even though the agent cited in Anonymous's story is an actual FBI operative, neither he nor anyone else in the agency has or has had access to Apple device information. This afternoon Apple followed up on the FBI's statement, with an unidentified Apple representative claiming that, 'The FBI has not requested this information from Apple, nor have we provided it to the FBI or any organization.' It should also be noted that while the hackers claim to have accessed 12 million UDID's, only 1 million were publicly released. The Apple representative who made the previous statements also said that, 'Apple has replaced the types of identifiers the hackers appear to have gotten and will be discontinuing their use.' Even though neither Anonymous nor the FBI/APPLE will admit where the data actually came from, it does appear that at least some of the leaked UDID's are legit and can be tied back to current, privately owned devices. So far no information besides the devices UDID, DevToken ID, and device name has been released, however the original hackers claimed that some devices were tied to details as exact as phone numbers and billing addresses."
But Anonymous has? (Score:5, Funny)
So Apple says that the FBI doesn't have access to UDIDs but a bunch of script kiddies do? Is this a really poor reflection on the abilities of the FBI or do Apple's PR people have an IQ matching the number of buttons on the magic mouse?
AntiSec (Score:2)
but the point is still the same.
Re:AntiSec (Score:4, Funny)
but the point is still the same.
The spirit of Sargeant Shultz lives on.
"Colonel Hogan! I know nothing! Nothing!"
Re: (Score:1)
I was wondering whether anyone sensible was awake on slashdot.
The list contains APNs Tokens (NOT "DevToken ID"s, whatever the heck that's supposed to mean). Which means the information comes from an APN-enabled application. Any app can get the device's UDID. Apple isn't explicitly involved. There wouldn't have been any APNs Token.
Whether the information was collected by the FBI, or obtained by the FBI as part of some investigation or whatever other means remains unknown, but I for one am really curious
Re:But Anonymous has? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But Anonymous has? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But Anonymous has? (Score:4)
or they did and apple realized their PR lately been pretty bad with whole Samsung trail which as each day comes is showing how bad the jury messed that up. Apple gonna say what ever is in their best interest as if they gave all that info to the FBI it would be a major privacy issue since its pretty much tracking millions and millions of people.
More like Apple doesn't care about their PR, but they do insist they didn't cooperate with the FBI, the FBI insists Apple didn't cooperate with them and it's all possibly true or possibly false. If any of the released stuff actually works, it'll put the lie to both of them, which is as embarassing as it is funny.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What bad PR? The vast majority of consumers did not follow the case and were either blissfully unaware or apathetic about it. Apple hasn't in the least been bruised by this except amongst a small faction of consumers that use their spending to stick it to companies they don't like. If you bought an SIII because of Apple's lawsuit, then you probably would have bought some Android anyway. Even if those people don't buy an iPhone 5, there is a huge number of people who will. It's expected that iPhone 5 sales w
Re: (Score:1)
https://plus.google.com/u/0/114476892281222708332/posts/246srfbqg6G [google.com]
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/08/30/1634234/side-effect-of-the-apple-v-samsung-trial-increased-sales-for-samsung [slashdot.org]
It has nothing to do with people wanting to "stick it to companies they don't like" and everything to do with Apple saying that Samsung's devices are as good as Apple devices and people listening and wondering why should they pay so much more for something of the same value.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the links. The first link, a blog post by the co-founder of JibJab isn't really proof of anything; nor is a Forbes story pointing out that a number of people did go out and buy SIIIs immediately following the verdict. I should have been more clear. I'm sure there is some negative public reaction to the verdict, but I don't think it's substantial enough to have an actual effect. I would still bet that most cell phone consumers either did not follow this case, or didn't care. I brought up the to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind the internet does no reflect real life. Most gamers claim to have Call of duty and bitch about it being unoriginal and full of angry kids. it's still one of the top sellers despite hearing so many people claim they're boycotting it.
What makes you think they won't do it again? (Score:2)
If any of the released stuff actually works, it'll put the lie to both of them, which is as embarassing as it is funny.
It is not only embarrassing / funny, but also EXTREMELY WORRYING !!
It's entirely possible that the anonymous has somehow caught both Apple and FBI red handed, and accidentally revealed the secret relationship between FBI and Apple.
This time around they (Apple / FBI) can deny anything and everything - but what makes you think they won't do it again ?
What makes you think that Apple won't give FBI millions and millions more new UDIDs to enable FBI to snoop on iPhone / iPAD users?
Re:But Anonymous has? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But Anonymous has? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or, it could simply mean that the FBI didn't get the information from Apple, but from some 3rd party.
Given AT&T's [cnet.com] previous complicity with government privacy intrusions, it might not be too far to go to suspect that the FBI got the information from them.
Just to clarify, this is complete speculation with no evidence to back it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or that the agent in question had the information from somewhere, and was just using an FBI supplied laptop for his own purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
This is probably it. Does the FBI have an app in the App Store? If so, that's where it could come from.
If not, there are plenty of social networks - from OpenFeint (aka Gree) to many others. Perhaps it came from Flurry? Or Admob? Or some popular developer like Gameloft? Or Zynga?
Thing is, the entire list of information is available to a developer so they can send push notifications or other things, so it pro
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of other sources for both the FBI and Anon: wireless carriers, Databases owned by Apps that harvest the UDIDs (now a banned practice, but whatever), malware on jailbroken devices.
Also, perhaps the data actually came from another federal agency such as NSA, or said agent was moonlighting for another agency?
Every party in this mystery has reason to be secretive, so it's fertile ground for every type of conspiracy theory: Anon in league with FBI??
Easy to get UDID's (Score:5, Insightful)
So Apple says that the FBI doesn't have access to UDIDs but a bunch of script kiddies do?
Yes, that's in fact very easy to believe. All it would take is for the script kiddies to break into some server of an app that used UDID's for tracking users logged into an application that transmitted UDID's to the server as a kind of cookie... many developers used to do that, which is why Apple stopped allowing UDID's to be used by developers. It's really easy to believe a script kiddie stumbled on to such a list on some server.
The FBI wouldn't have a lit of UDID's unless they had some kind of official request for them, but then why only 12 million? Why would they be on a laptop instead of back in some server somewhere? I have no doubt the FBI could get such a list if they had a reason to, but really the UDID is of such little use to do anything with why would they?
In the end the thing that makes me doubt the source, the number of devices in the list is pretty small compared to the number of devices around, but is just about right to be the records from some application using the UDID as weak authentication...
Re: (Score:2)
A furious FBI attempts to tempt nobody and everybody ('Anonymous'), with a blanket denial, sniff, sniff, I smell a trap. Right at this moment the individuals involved have the advantage having sprung a surprise on the FBI, right now the FBI will be sniffing the network legally and illegally via the NSA to try to track the individuals involved. Now would be a could time to drop this particular game and while the FBI are so focused on it, 'peek' them some where else and keep the yucks going (although you wou
For what? (Score:5, Insightful)
If these files had anything of any use to anyone, I would be suspicious right there with you.
But these files are basically useless. For around a year now applications cannot eve access the UDID or submissions to the app store will be blocked. In iOS6 it's totally blocked. That's the thing in the end that convinces me the FBI is not involved, because this data is of no real use to them at all, not even for keeping tabs of future mobile device use. And again, the number of devices they have here also makes very little sense in terms of being something the FBI would have collected - the FBI should have a complete list of hundreds of millions of devices, not just 12 million.
When things are confused, the simplest answer is usually correct. There is no simple answer as to how they were obtained from an FBI laptop or why the FBI would have such a pointless list of data, whereas anon skimming these files off some hapless server IS a very simple aswer as to how they have this data.
If it had names & addresses & SSN for everyone, then I'd start wondering. But this scattershot file of mostly useless identifiers is just pointless to risk the furor of Congress (who they will have to answer to if lying) to acquire.
Re: (Score:3)
the FBI should have a complete list of hundreds of millions of devices, not just 12 million.
SELECT * INTO agents_tbl FROM all_iphones_tbl WHERE <some_condition>;
Condition unknown (Score:2)
SELECT * INTO agents_tbl FROM all_iphones_tbl WHERE ;
Apple doesn't HAVE any way to query against that condition. They have ID's and names.
Which right away tells you the list was not from Apple, or ALL of them would have names.
So then you have some other large set of UDID's and names. Only that's all they have, ID's and names.
The only marginal use you could gain from such a list is if you have AS MANY ID/name pairings as possible, so on some future date if you had an ID you could look it up in your databas
Re: (Score:2)
What are these UDIDs used for? Could it be that these were collected from the owners via a Trojan app or web site or whatever?
Random things, not a trojan... (Score:2)
What are these UDIDs used for?
In testing you use them to select who can run test builds.
You USED to be able to use them in an app to tell when a person on the same device was contacting your server, as a shortcut for having them log in. But Apple ended that practice about a year ago.
Some ad networks were using them for tracking, again stopped about a year ago.
They are not used for anything anymore because Apple rejects apps that try and access the UDID.
That's the reason why the list is utterly pointless.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the reason why the list is utterly pointless. It cannot be used going forward to correlate anything.
This leaves us with only two possibilities:
The paranoid in me tells me that the former is not very likel
Re: (Score:2)
because nobody admits collecting it.
Nobody admits it is THIER database, but scores of companies (including for instance OpenFeint) are publicly said they collected UDID values. It's not like it's not widely known there are a lot of companies that used to do so.
Also note that if the table does not have the home address or the phone or the SSN of the owner then it means exactly nothing.
You are insane. If it had some existing values like SSN, why not store that data for everyone f they really had the complet
Re: (Score:1)
Re:But Anonymous has? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute...the magic mouse doesn't have buttons...
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda my point
Re: (Score:2)
And why are you still determined to to take the script kiddies statement as pure truth? Most likely you have made up your mind who the real villains are and refuse to examine the veracity of of facts that don't support your world view. This type of mindless thinking only reveals your lack of intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
they both are lying, the most probable option
or
the FBI took the info from apple without permission
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is saying they didn't give the data to the FBI. Maybe it came from a leak inside AT&T? They also have billing data.
From the paranoid.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course that is what they would say.
You are not allowed to say one way or the other if you have a National Security letter (demand) issued...
flabbergasted! (Score:1)
Got it. Everybody denies everything. Any chance of this being subjected to any form of toothful scrutiny?
Re: (Score:2)
Got it. Everybody denies everything. Any chance of this being subjected to any form of toothful scrutiny?
It's about time to get that ol' Foobie Bletch scroll out and see what it says on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice, this isn't being presented as a security issue. Rather, the big news here is that the FBI would have a list of these IDs, implying that Apple was helping the FBI track users. That could be the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
iOS6 (Score:2)
So what types of identifiers do the use now, and what's the purpose of them anyway?
Is it for advertisers to do behavioral tracking? Can you override/deactivate them?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:iOS6 (Score:5, Informative)
They are used for identifying a specific device, which can be used in turn as a type of account id. Each application on the device is completely separate from the others, if you have an application such as a social network the user would need to login separately for every app. This in itself, isn't so bad, the problem is that applications can tie this information to create databases that might tie together things. For instance, OpenFeint was using the UDID for single sign-in. A researcher found that the profile pictures from Facebook contained the Facebook userid. If a user using OpenFeint was using the Facebook profile image, then that UDID could be used to find the Facebook profile. OpenFeint fixed that loophole immediately by obscuring the URLs, but the general problem remained, anyone could write an app to gather UDID information and many did.
How to deanonymize with OpenFeint [corte.si]
There isn't any way that a user can stop an app from reading the UDID, a jailbroken phone can change them IIRC.
In response, Apple deprecated the UDID. Although many places have said that Apple rejects apps that use UDID, this is not completely true. Apple started rejecting apps that used UDID but didn't tell you. There are still many apps collecting the information.
There are a few alternatives, with varying degrees of success:
* Each app makes a GUID, stores locally. Which works great for one-off apps, but doesn't allow multiple apps to collate data (either a benefit or drawback depending on who you are). It also means you will lose data on a reset.
* use a different ID, such as MAC. Essentially the same thing, with the same drawbacks, not recommended.
* Facebook and other networks have started using a Cookie stored in Safari. This means that the registration actually leaves the application and returns to it using a specially crafted URL. This way, each app can simply round-trip to Safari to grab the cookie. Complicated, but it works
* Use UIPasteboard. This is an API that allows you to store information that other apps can read. It's sort of a hack, but some libraries are using it.
OpenUDID [github.com] SecureUDID [github.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Every app for themselves (Score:5, Interesting)
So what types of identifiers do the use now
They don't. Each app has to use it's own, that way they are not the same across applications on the same device.
and what's the purpose of them anyway?
Mostly they are useful to permit specific devices to run development builds.
Over time some applications started to use the UDID as a weak kind of authentication, so a user would not have to log in or create an account. That's fine at first, but then you run into the problem if someone sells a device it would seem like the original user to the application.
Some did use it for simple tracking, to try and understand the chain of commands a single user was doing across sessions. I believe some advertising systems did use them also, and then they could use them to track who was the same person across apps... that cannot be done anymore in iOS6.
Can you override/deactivate them?
Before, no. In the new system if you delete an app it should have to regenerate a new unique ID (if it even uses one).
Where DID they come from then. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
My guess: they didn't pay
Re: (Score:1)
They could easily have come from an advertisement service like AdMob, or a provisionig service like Test Flight - many places. strange that the Apple statement was from an "un identified" representative though.
Re:Where DID they come from then. (Score:5, Informative)
It could be from a 3rd party. Lots of applications were known to track UUIDs (and take phonebooks, etc). One of those companies could have given that data to the FBI (or had it taken as part of a search). Or the FBI could have gotten it from some criminal who obtained it by breaking into some company's computer. Or a rogue employee took it and gave it to someone.
Apple is hardly the only possible source of this kind of data.
Simpler theory (Score:3)
Which is more likely, that these guys were able to break into a specific FBI laptop, or into one of scores of servers that had this kind of list on it?
The simplest answer is they did not get it from the FBI at all, they just want to hurt the FBI by claiming they did. And they have lots of cause to want to screw over the FBI.
Re: (Score:3)
Need some proof (Score:4, Interesting)
Anonymous claims to be a bunch people with like aims and no leadership. So this may be just some person who happened to get hold of the info and published it claiming to be Anonymous or Anti-sec or whomever. The claim that the data came from the FBI is unsupported - proof would be some additional data from the same system such as logs, etc. which have not been produced.
My personal guess is that the most likely source is some social networking site and the guy is saying it's the FBI as some sort of disinformation. It's possible but unlikely that both Apple and the FBI are outright lying about the source. There are all sorts of other possibilities.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anonymous claims to be a bunch people with like aims and no leadership. So this may be just some person who happened to get hold of the info and published it claiming to be Anonymous or Anti-sec or whomever. The claim that the data came from the FBI is unsupported - proof would be some additional data from the same system such as logs, etc. which have not been produced.
My personal guess is that the most likely source is some social networking site and the guy is saying it's the FBI as some sort of disinformation. It's possible but unlikely that both Apple and the FBI are outright lying about the source. There are all sorts of other possibilities.
I wonder who it is who claims to have Mitt's tax returns. The extortion attempt is out of character for the usual gang of kiddies.
Report of Romney tax records on the loose [sfgate.com]
Hah! Denying It! (Score:1)
What about Facebook? (Score:2)
More Information Regarding new ID system (Score:2)
It's been said hundreds of times already... (Score:1, Flamebait)
I don't know what's more worrying: the fact that people still can't grasp this concept, or the fact that people take everything AntiSec says as gospel.
This is the third fucking Apple UDID story in 24 hours. Can we please move on to shit that
It's been sad hundreds of times already too (Score:2)
Googling "Old Fart App" leads to a link with a Google ad as follows:
"Ads by Google:
Government Transformers www.govtransformers.com
Enhance Productivity, Collaboration Moblity, Transparency, & Lower Cost
So are you covertly trying to imply that Google is in on it with Apple?
On a serious note though, just what makes you so determined to divert us from the known fact that the FBI has a history of lying through their teeth? If you
Title is Wrong (or at least misleading) (Score:2)
Damage control mode... (Score:2)
That's not the allegation that Apple gave the FBI that information. They never said that Apple gave it over to the FBI. The filename allegedly stolen was NCFTA_iOS_devices_intel.csv , which means it came from the NCFTA, not from Apple.
Why won't they ask Apple if they handed it to the NCFTA or that the NCFTA requested it? Then let's see what they have to say...
Re: (Score:1)
Even more so, if Apple denies they handed it over to an agency, that doesn't mean that a shell company partnering with Apple, or a mole within Apple didn't hand it over to the NCFTA.
Look Carefully at what the FBI Said (Score:2)
They did not deny that they had this information, they actually denied that it was on any FBI laptops. (Carefully worded to exclude personally owned laptops by FBI officials)
Zing!
He-said, she-said (Score:4, Interesting)
So, the FBI says "we didn't have that information". Apple says "The FBI never requested that information from us". Anonymous says "The FBI had the information".
What I'm getting from this:
* You can't trust any of these organizations to be 100% honest, but they all frequently integrate a bit of truth with each lie, so you can't completely disregard what any one of them says.
* Any, and up to two of them concurrently, could be telling the whole truth, but given their individual track records with honesty, you can't take what they're saying at face value.
One possibility is that the FBI did have the information, that they did not go about getting it through "legal" channels, and that Apple did not know that the FBI had the information. Anonymous "liberating" the information could be their way of forcing everybody's hands about dishonesty, government-instigated corporate espionage, and information security on a massive scale.
Another possibility is that the FBI acquired the information via legal channels and that Apple and the FBI don't want to admit it because the social and political repercussions. Again, Anonymous plays the same role as in the above scenario.
Yet another possibility is that Anonymous "acquired" the information from sources other than the FBI and are using it to rattle somebody's cage or play some type of misdirection.
In the end, data that was thought to be secure was made public, and this has put more than a few people's feet on the fire for it.
The sad thing is that it probably won't be known for sure who's telling the truth because each organization won't want to show more of their hand than they already have. This means that the problems that led to this, whatever and wherever they may be, probably won't be fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's impossible for the FBI to prove they're not the source of the data. Therefore the burden of proof is
How about a plant? (Score:1)
Drat and bother, or how to solve this mystery (Score:5, Interesting)
This all a bunch of nonsense! This was probably just a list from a given vendor. Track this down by doing the following:
Look for the ID's and find the most recent date one that you can. That gives you the date range that this is relevant for.
Look at the ID's and match them to locations? Are they all from the US? That might give credence to FBI angle (which I think is bullocks).
Look at the ID's and start matching users.
Look for commonality between said users, this far too large of a list of users to simply be a list of OWS protestors (sorry, if OWS was ever that large on just apple users alone OWS would have succeeded instead of being a punch line). Your doing this just to exclude conspiracy theories like a national we spy on people with shiny toys conspiracy theory.
Once you've concluded that there isn't anything in common between most of these people you can't start the real work:
Start matching the common thing or applications between those users. You will probably discover something really benign like they they all have AT&T accounts that belong to the western part of the US or they all have the Twitter application or something really boring.
Apple trying to fix a NON DENIAL (Score:2, Insightful)
The actual official press release from the FBI, the only statement that matters, didn't deny it, it says "at this time there is no evidence". It was a non denial denial. Apple are simply trying to fix the non-denial denial.
But I agree with you, it is likely a rogue app, or an App with a very bad EULA captured the data. It is also likely the FBI got it as part of an investigation into that app.
Now they should try to match up the common app and then we will know more.
Re: (Score:3)
> (which I think is bullocks).
Are you saying it's a load of bulls?
LOL (Score:1)
Oh the delicious irony. The faceless, nameless and unscrupulous... yet I believe them before I'll ever believe the likes of Apple or the FBI. See, Anonymous has no reason to lie. The bold truth is just fun enough without needing to embellish.