AntiSec Leaks 1 Million Apple Device IDs Obtained During FBI Breach

[Poke]

Always starts with the user no matter how good your security is it's the ones with the keys you have to worry about..

http://gizmodo.com/5940183/antisec-leaks-1-million-apple-device-ids-obtained-during-fbi-breach

 

[yourbeliefs]

I'll make a note to check when I get home, although I'd like to think none of my devices are in the FBI database..

 

[John Kotches]

Prior to the leak, if this information was not publically available then it is another shining example of the continued erosion of our 4th amendment rights.

I'm quite interested in Rocky's thoughts on this.



Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

 

[TheForce]

Breaking news: UDID will be banned. Apple says iOS6 will replace UDID. Apple says they didn't give unique device ID's to FBI and FBI says they didn't seek ID information.

I looked up mine and they were not on the list. So does this mean I will no longer get harassed when going through airport security?

Update- details:

Apple denies providing IDs to FBI: report
1:25p ET September 5, 2012 (MarketWatch)
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Apple Inc. , on Wednesday, refuted reports from a computer-hacking group claiming to have obtained one million Apple ID numbers from a computer of a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent. Apple told the Wall Street Journal that it provided none of the so-called UDID identification numbers to the FBI. "The FBI has not requested this information from Apple, nor have we provided it to the FBI or any organization," the Journal reported Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris as saying. The hacker group Antisec claimed earlier in the week that it had obtained a total of 12 million UDID numbers, including the ones allegedly from the FBI computer. The FBI, on Tuesday, said it had no evidence to suggest one of its computers had been hacked by the Antisec group.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Mine wasnt on their either.

 

[TheForce]

Now I wonder if the list was designed to collect them when people used it to look them up??

I only entered the first 5 digits, not the whole number.

Seems like Apple is addressing this issue as best they can.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Same here only used the first 5 numbers.

 

[Hall]

Mine wasnt on their either.

92% of the UDID obtained aren't public yet though. Will need to check our devices when I get home...

 

[mperdue]

Mine wasn't in the database either but I had to put in the first ten digits before it could determine that.

 

[John Kotches]

On a somewhat related note , now that warrantless GPS tracing is struck down, the Government is saying that Cell Tower data is not protected information and should have no expectation of privacy?

Last I checked, the US Government wasn't building these towers so, IMO, there should be an expectation of privacy between you and the phone company. The default position should be that data between business and their customers is private data lacking probable cause and a search warrant.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mike123abc]

On a somewhat related note , now that warrantless GPS tracing is struck down, the Government is saying that Cell Tower data is not protected information and should have no expectation of privacy?

Last I checked, the US Government wasn't building these towers so, IMO, there should be an expectation of privacy between you and the phone company. The default position should be that data between business and their customers is private data lacking probable cause and a search warrant.

They are arguing that it is third party data like bank records which have been ruled not protected information in the past.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/20...mpaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Top+Stories)

The administration, citing a 1976 Supreme Court precedent, said such data, like banking records, are “third-party records,” meaning customers have no right to keep it private. The government made the argument as it prepares for a re-trial of a previously convicted drug dealer whose conviction was reversed in January by the Supreme Court, which found that the government’s use of a GPS tracker on his vehicle was an illegal search.

 

[mike123abc]

The FBI denies that it was their laptop that was hacked:
http://allthingsd.com/20120904/fbi-says-antisec-hackers-lied-about-list-of-iphone-id-numbers/

It is interesting:

The FBI is aware of published reports alleging that an FBI laptop was compromised and private data regarding Apple UDIDs was exposed. At this time there is no evidence indicating that an FBI laptop was compromised or that the FBI either sought or obtained this data.

One wonders if it was evidence or something on a laptop the FBI had gotten in a raid or something. Not an "FBI" laptop but perhaps one in the custody of the FBI that they were studying. There is some speculation that it could have been a rogue app developer that captured the information.

 

[John Kotches]

They are arguing that it is third party data like bank records which have been ruled not protected information in the past.

I understand the argument they are making, but I don't buy their premise.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

 

[John Kotches]

And government agencies have never ever provided erroneous information



Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

 

[yourbeliefs]

Looks like someone was hacked, just not the FBI..
http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/20...evice-ids-leaked-by-anonymous-last-week?lite&

 

[mperdue]

Looks like someone was hacked, just not the FBI..
http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/20...evice-ids-leaked-by-anonymous-last-week?lite&

It looks to me like the FBI wasn't involved.

 

[Foxbat]

Why would AntiSec want to let facts get it the way?

 

[John Kotches]

Interesting, if true.

I have reservations that we'll never get the whole truth.

Honestly, with a database dump (which this seems to be) I would expect 100% correlation on matching records. The 98% statement makes me go hmmm.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mperdue]

Interesting, if true.

I have reservations that we'll never get the whole truth.

Honestly, with a database dump (which this seems to be) I would expect 100% correlation on matching records. The 98% statement makes me go hmmm.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

You don't think it's possible that they could have edited the file after it was stolen?

 

[John Kotches]

You don't think it's possible that they could have edited the file after it was stolen?

Assuming the contents were csv as seemed to be indicated they are a pain to edit. Bulk edits are easy with readily available Unix tools.

We don't know what the 2% of lacking correlation is.