Passcode Vulnerability

The subheadline of a Wall Street Journal article on cell phone security vulnerabilities presents the subject of my post.

The passcode that unlocks your phone can give thieves access to your money and data; “it’s like a treasure box”

The article then laid out the problem:

The thieves are exploiting a simple vulnerability in the software design of over one billion iPhones active globally. It centers on the passcode, the short string of numbers that grants access to a device; and passwords, generally longer alphanumeric combinations that serve as the logins for different accounts.
With only the iPhone and its passcode, an interloper can within seconds change the password associated with the iPhone owner’s Apple ID. This would lock the victim out of their account, which includes anything stored in iCloud. The thief can also often loot the phone’s financial apps since the passcode can unlock access to all the device’s stored passwords.
“Once you get into the phone, it’s like a treasure box,” said Alex Argiro, who investigated a high-profile theft ring as a New York Police Department detective before retiring last fall.

This image lays out the technique:There’s nothing magic about iPhones in this regard, though; Android cell phones are just as vulnerable to this sort of attack.

However, there are a couple of solutions to this, regardless of the type of cell phone you use. Each solution also works even better when done in concert with the other, and they rely on something old-fashioned: caution and concern for personal privacy.

One solution is to not use your cell phone to conduct any activity, not only financial, that you don’t want exposed to the public, much less to a thief. That way, if your cell phone is stolen, there’s nothing in it beyond your contact list that can be hacked. The potential cost of doing non-telephone things on your cell phone is far greater than the short-term convenience gained.

The other solution is to not store anything in the cloud. Keep your private material private by keeping it entirely within your home’s network, and ideally even more restricted: keep that information solely on your PC’s or laptop’s hard drive, or better, on an external hard drive that connects only via USB—and keep that external storage device separate from your PC/laptop.

Related, and subsidiary to all of that, don’t store passcodes or passwords on your PC/laptop, even via a passcode/word manager. In the unlikely event your laptop is stolen, or your PC is stolen via home break-in, that manager can be hacked at the thief’s leisure.

“Mistake”

Recall the Smithsonian Museum student visitors who were ejected from the Museum by its guards for the heinous crime of wearing pro-life ball caps. The Museum’s management has responded to House Republicans requests for status and repercussions.

“This was an aberration and not reflective of Smithsonian values and practice of welcoming all visitors regardless of viewpoint,” Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III said. “Visitors are not to be denied access based on messages on their clothing, and an error was made in this regard on January 20, 2023.”
When asked whether disciplinary action would be taken, Bunch responded, “The instruction to visitors to remove their pro-life hats was a mistake – a misinterpretation of what was permissible. It was not a willful violation.

The museum’s guards were acting out of mistake, so they’ll skate with no consequences.

Sure. The ejection might have been a mistake. I don’t think it was, but if it was, why aren’t the museum’s training and evaluation personnel—the ones who trained these guards and then marked them ready for duty—under sanction for their failed training and evaluation?

Regardless, stipulate the guards’ ejections of the students was a mistake. That wasn’t all that the Museum personnel did to these students. Per Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing the students,

The museum staff mocked the students, called them expletives, and made comments that the museum was a “neutral zone” where they could not express such statements[.]

That behavior was not a mistake; it was deliberately done. Why aren’t the guards being punished for that?

It looks like the Smithsonian, under current management, isn’t worth the moneys committed to supporting it.

Sometimes

The FBI doesn’t engage only in pernicious activities—investigating mothers and traditional Catholics as terrorists, for instance, or lying to FISA courts.

Sometimes FBI personnel are just incompetent, and along a number of axes.

  • One agent left a highly lethal M4 carbine unsecured in his government car during a Starbucks run and had the weapon stolen…. “Although there was a lockbox in the trunk for storage of weapons and sensitive items,” the agent chose to store the rifle bag behind the car’s front passenger seat, one report shows.
    • [and] three dozen agents reported guns being lost, stolen or handled unsafely….
  • one agent who accidentally discharged his weapon and shot a hole through the floor of his hotel room….

If any Americans should have their guns taken away from them, maybe it should be FBI personnel. [/snark]

  • …inappropriate [sexual] affairs with felons in prison, confidential sources and subordinate employees.
  • agents and Bureau staff driving under the influence (DUI)….
  • One [agent] stole drug evidence to feed a heroin addiction….
  • [An FBI] employee pulled a gun on a private citizen during [the employee’s] road rage.
  • an [FBI] employee who shot and killed his neighbor’s dog….
  • [An FBI agent sent] “a threatening and vile email to his girlfriend’s ex-husband,” was faced with a temporary protective order. The agent then threatened to shoot the process server….

And so on. And on.

There’s this, too, which should saucer and blow the whole…affair:

The extensive reports were in fact so impactful that the FBI suspended distributing them for seven months in 2021-2022, due to complaints that the “employees harmed by misconduct” might feel shamed.

The FBI needs to be disbanded and certain of its investigative facilities transferred to a different, independent facility located in Middle America and created from scratch.

Maybe End a Boycott?

San Francisco is beginning to contemplate ending its travel ban to States of which the city’s governing Council disapproves because those States hold values that are too conservative to suit the Councilmen.

The move was largely seen as a boycott to pressure other states and prevent the city from engaging in business with those whose values it deemed antithetical to its own.

City Administrator Carmen Chu issued a report that suggests a negative outcome of the city’s move.

No states with restrictive LGBTQ rights, voting rights, or abortion policies have cited the City’s travel and contract bans as motivation for reforming their laws.

And especially [emphasis added],

Since 12X [the banning ordinance] became operative, the number of banned states has grown from 8 states in 2017 to 30 in 2022. This increase suggests that the City’s threat of boycott may not serve as a compelling deterrent to states considering restrictive policies. Only 1 state has ever been removed from the list.

Ya think?

However.

Even if San Francisco does lift its boycott, I still won’t travel to that city. The crime rate remains shockingly high, the threats of harassment and of assault by the homeless remains rampant on the city’s sidewalks, drug use and the threat of drug infections—even from the used drug needles lying about on those same sidewalks—remains too widespread, the vast piles of human and other animal feces on those same sidewalks remains too thick; the risks go on and on.

Further, San Francisco’s mayor and city council, despite all of that, continue to disparage the police and limit their ability to function.

San Francisco remains not worth the trouble of traveling to, much less doing business in or with.

Christine Wilson’s Weak Apologia

Soon to be ex-Federal Trade Commissioner Christine Wilson issued her “explanation” for quitting her post as FTC Commissioner. Her lengthy rationalization of her decision to walk away from her responsibilities as FTC Commissioner aggregated to as a minority member of a Left-dominated Commission, she was unable to get the FTC Chairwoman to change her ways.

This is how the Left wins. Putative Conservatives turn tail and run when things get tough, cutting and running especially during a time when the erstwhile Conservative chair will be sat in by a Progressive replacement.

I have failed repeatedly to persuade Ms Khan and her enablers to do the right thing, and I refuse to give their endeavor any further hint of legitimacy by remaining. Accordingly, I will soon resign as an FTC commissioner.

Any excuse to run away. Staying on would give legitimacy only if she meekly acceded to Khan’s misbehaviors. If she kept the fight going, even if losing the fight, she would be lending no legitimacy to Khan; on the contrary, she would be highlighting Khan’s misbehaviors. But it’s just personally easier to…quit.