Hacker News Reader

Comment by zekevermillion | Hacker News Reader

Huh... That may be possible! It would require Apple not being able to control that entity, however. They would effectively have to outsource security (seems like a dangerous plan). Also, the gov't could then simply outlaw the outsourcing of security functions for device manufacturers.

View on HN

They could use multiple signing keys. One in America, one in Hong Kong, one in Germany, etc. If a firmware update is not signed in all (or N of M) jurisdictions, the secure enclave simply rejects it.

This is an excellent solution. A bit like Ripple's concept of trusting a set of validators are unlikely to collude against you, without having to trust any single one of them: https://wiki.ripple.com/Consensus#Not_colluding

Of course it doesn't stop any particular government from making it illegal to sell unbackdoorable phones in their country.

Or even better a single signing key for each phone so they don't get carte blanche access from a single request.

Here's another possibility. Let's say DOJ wins, or a new law is passed requiring Apple to sign malware version of iOS. Apple risks losing huge market share overseas, where people will stop buying iPhones. Apple spins off affiliate companies in these other countries, distributing controlling share of the affiliate stock to current Apple shareholders. Then apple just licenses its tech to the spin-off affiliates. No control over their ops. (Obviously would be more convoluted, much more -- but that's the basic idea.)

This sounds like a good case for a threshold signature scheme[1] where no one member has all of a complete key and can partially sign without revealing their piece of the key to anyone.

[1] http://www.iacr.org/archive/eurocrypt2000/1807/18070209-new....

You don't actually need any new clever algorithms at all. At least on Windows, you can simply sign code with multiple certificates.

Aren't all algorithms "clever" at some level? I assume you are implying non-mainstream - that always carries risks, but there are some advantages:

1. The software that verifies the certificate doesn't need to be changed - which is quite an advantage if it has already been shipped, or if you need to change the signing rules at a later date.

2. The verification logic is exactly the same as if checking a regular, single signature certificate. Nice and simple, no bugs related to whether all criteria have been met by multiple certificates.

> the gov't could then simply outlaw..

If this was about the gov't simply making new laws we wouldn't be having this discussion right? Fortunately we live in a country where the gov't can't simply outlaw things.

Actually they can. I see nothing unconstitutional about restricting companies from circumventing a court ruling on existing law. Even if unconstitutional (which it's not) that does not necessarily prevent a bill from becoming a law.

The entire discussion here is not about Apple circumventing a court ruling. They are appealing the ruling, and until the appeal is complete they don't have to perform any action.

Right now, it would be very unconstitutional (a denial of due process) to prevent Apple from appealing the ruling.

It has been said that Congress, who can legislate all kinds of stuff, is the DOJ's end-game here. So, stay tuned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com