←back to thread

Reverse Engineering iOS 18 Inactivity Reboot

(naehrdine.blogspot.com)
511 points moonsword | 8 comments | 17 Nov 24 21:50 UTC | HN request time: 1.292s | source | bottom
Show context
Shank ◴[18 Nov 24 09:31 UTC] No.42170993[source]▶
To me the biggest takeaway is that Apple is sufficiently paranoid to add this feature. Some people (like John Gruber) advocate for activating bio lockout at the border by squeezing the volume and power buttons. I would say if you’re the type of person who would do this, you should go one step further and power off.

Similarly, if you’re in a situation where you cannot guarantee your phone’s security because it’s leaving your possession, and you’re sufficiently worried, again, power off fully.

replies(6): >>42171295 #>>42171375 #>>42171383 #>>42171541 #>>42172129 #>>42173509 #
phinnaeus ◴[18 Nov 24 10:48 UTC] No.42171295[source]▶
What do you do if you’re at the border and they demand both the physical device and the password?

Let’s assume “get back on the plane and leave” is not a viable option.

replies(7): >>42171300 #>>42171336 #>>42171441 #>>42171689 #>>42172174 #>>42172240 #>>42172539 #
cherryteastain ◴[18 Nov 24 10:57 UTC] No.42171336[source]▶
GrapheneOS duress password [1] and user profiles [2] are quite solid solutions for this scenario

[1] https://grapheneos.org/features#duress

[2] https://grapheneos.org/features#improved-user-profiles

replies(1): >>42171723 #
andyjohnson0 ◴[18 Nov 24 12:14 UTC] No.42171723[source]▶
From the link:

> GrapheneOS provides users with the ability to set a duress PIN/Password that will irreversibly wipe the device (along with any installed eSIMs) once entered anywhere where the device credentials are requested (on the lockscreen, along with any such prompt in the OS).

In a border interrogation scenario, isn't that just likely to get you arrested for destroying evidence?

replies(1): >>42172146 #
1. verandaguy ◴[18 Nov 24 13:33 UTC] No.42172146[source]▶
Depends on the border. In most democracies, and at most borders, and in most LE cases, there is a line between “destruction of my own property/data” and “destruction of evidence,” where the latter usually needs a court document notifying the subject of the potential charge of their requirement to preserve evidence (for example, a subpoena, or in some cases, a direct request to avoid spoliation).
replies(1): >>42173663 #
2. myflash13 ◴[18 Nov 24 16:02 UTC] No.42173663[source]▶
Theory. This is not how things work in practice, even in "democracies". Speaking as a person who has been harassed at the US border from Canada many times, I've learned it depends more on how the border agent "feels" about you. These people are often uneducated bullies who don't know or don't care about the law anyway. And if you start objecting on some legal basis, they can legally make things a LOT harder for you, including simply denying entry for no reason (yes, they have such a right). Better to cooperate rather than give the appearance of "destroying evidence" (even if completely legal) or you're in for a world of hurt if you got the wrong guy.
replies(2): >>42174899 #>>42175199 #
3. darkwater ◴[18 Nov 24 17:51 UTC] No.42174899[source]▶
Wella, if you are a "normal person" with actually nothing to hide, yes, cooperating as much as you can is probably the best thing to do. But if you are some "special person" (activist, journalist, diplomat etc) wiping out everything might be your best option.
replies(1): >>42178549 #
4. seanw444 ◴[18 Nov 24 18:16 UTC] No.42175199[source]▶
I have a solution to that problem that works 100% of the time:

I don't leave the US.

replies(1): >>42176073 #
5. iAMkenough ◴[18 Nov 24 19:38 UTC] No.42176073{3}[source]▶
2 out of 3 people in the US live within U.S. Customs and Border Protection jurisdiction, where border agents can search without warrant if they determine they have "reasonable suspicion."

Additionally, SCOTUS ruled in 2022 (Egbert v Boule) that someone who has had their Fourth Amendment rights violated by CBP agents are not entitled to any damages unless Congress clearly defines a punishment for the violation by a federal agent.

replies(1): >>42177259 #
6. seanw444 ◴[18 Nov 24 21:28 UTC] No.42177259{4}[source]▶
True, that's ridiculous. But luckily I am one of the 1 out of 3.
7. F7F7F7 ◴[18 Nov 24 23:47 UTC] No.42178549{3}[source]▶
With all due respect. I used to think that only Boomers and anonymous Youtube edge lords repeated the "if you have nothing to worry about, comply!" nonsense.

You surprised me today.

replies(1): >>42188485 #
8. darkwater ◴[19 Nov 24 21:51 UTC] No.42188485{4}[source]▶
I didn't say that at all. What I mean is that if you are, let say, on a leisure trip or to meet your family, the last thing you want is to be sent back were you came from or put 2 days into custody because you valued more the privacy of your phone content.

Now, if you do it, hat off, and even more if you can hire a lawyer and get justice done, but in that case you definitely are not "a normal person".