Apple Confirms “Back Doors”, Downplays Their Severity
His work on security in iOS is quite interesting, but he seems determined to spin everything for maximum publicity rather than, well, accuracy or truth, which is a shame. For example, on that blog post he writes about pcapd and developers:<p><pre><code>    "Lets start with pcapd; I mentioned in my talk that pcapd has many legitimate uses such as these"
</code></pre>
Yet in the slides for his talk[1] under theories he writes"<p><pre><code>    "Maybe for Developers for Debugging? No."
</code></pre>
There are many examples of things like this in his writing, where actual facts are unsaid in order to gain the maximum melodrama for a particular statement.<p>On top of that he seems to continually avoid the point that to enable these you need physical access to the device (for the pairing process to have a machine marked as trusted). If you have physical access, enabling debug[2] features are probably the least of your worries.<p>Anyway, rant over. It just annoys me that genuinely interesting information often seems to be spun by personalities to give it artificial gloss these days, making it all feel a bit slimy and self-serving.<p>[1] <a href="https://pentest.com/ios_backdoors_attack_points_surveillance_mechanisms.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://pentest.com/ios_backdoors_attack_points_surveillance...</a><p>[2] Debug if you're Apple, Back Doors if you're Mr. Zdziarski