I tried a few of them, including this one. None worked. I have an iPhone 5 with
iOS 9.3
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 30, 2016, at 12:34 AM, IngeGNUe wrote:
>
>> On 03/29/16 22:09, Joe Polcari wrote:
>> That's great if you've already degraded your security by having Siri
On 03/29/16 22:09, Joe Polcari wrote:
> That's great if you've already degraded your security by having Siri listen
> all the time.
> If you haven't already compromised your own security, this won't work.
>
>
HA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOMKF2FL3N0
There are other ways than with Siri :)
, 2016 6:53 PM
To: discuss@blu.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] Encrypt Everything? Good Luck With That
On 03/28/16 20:14, Rich Pieri wrote:
> An important bit of news came down a few hours ago. It reminded me
> that I've harped on a couple of security points on this list over the
years.
&g
On 03/29/16 19:24, Rich Pieri wrote:
> On 3/29/2016 6:52 PM, IngeGNUe wrote:
>> Agreed. LOL I remember watching a YouTube video explaining how to bypass
>> the iPhone's passcode. They took Apple to court over the screen lock?!
>
> No. Apple goaded the FBI into taking them to court for refusing to
On 3/29/2016 6:52 PM, IngeGNUe wrote:
> Agreed. LOL I remember watching a YouTube video explaining how to bypass
> the iPhone's passcode. They took Apple to court over the screen lock?!
No. Apple goaded the FBI into taking them to court for refusing to
assist law enforcement officers. This is a
On 03/28/16 20:14, Rich Pieri wrote:
> An important bit of news came down a few hours ago. It reminded me that
> I've harped on a couple of security points on this list over the years.
>
> One: physical security is paramount.
>
> Two: encryption is not a substitute for physical security.
>
>
On 3/29/2016 10:54 AM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote:
> If the world were magically to switch to Open Source Everything,
> assuming physical security, is there an argument that this is somehow
> insecure -- that some code needs to be secret in order for it to be
> secure? Chip fabs, hardware
On 3/29/2016 10:55 AM, Bill Horne wrote:
> I suppose there's a wheel within this wheel: perhaps someone with a
> finger in the FBI's budget pie wanted to strong-arm a hefty campaign
> contribution from Apple. It's also possible that Apple's execs wanted
> some free ink and to boost the iPhone's
Bill Horne writes:
> contribution from Apple. It's also possible that Apple's execs wanted
> some free ink and to boost the iPhone's reputation for security, and
> that everyone inside the beltway knew how this would play out months ago.
Well that blew up in their faces. Oh,
On 3/29/2016 1:48 AM, Bill Ricker wrote:
(And this wasn't even the SBS's operational phone, it was his work
phone, so it's still just posturing. They'll be back when they have
something else they think public opinion might back them on.)
The FBI's choice of case and approach have caused
If the world were magically to switch to Open Source Everything, assuming
physical security, is there an argument that this is somehow insecure --
that some code needs to be secret in order for it to be secure? Chip fabs,
hardware designs, missiles, attack systems, radar, networks, nuclear and
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Rich Pieri wrote:
> One: physical security is paramount.
>
> Two: encryption is not a substitute for physical security.
>
Absolutely.
And INFOSEC researchers understood this 30 years ago (i was there), so the
older *&/or* better ones
12 matches
Mail list logo