Hacker News Reader

For what it's worth I unflagged/vouched for the article because I think the premise and the comments refuting it are an interesting discussion.

Even if he's wrong, the reason why he's wrong is informative.

View on HN

Thanks! I really did want to respond to this.

It's possible that I'm wrong, but not for the reasons given so far. Once you have a copy of the flash you can always get back to the current state by installing a copy of the flash in its current state. Then you can simply brute-force the PIN.

Is that true though? Other commenters are arguing that the encryption of that flash chip is a value that, while based on the PIN, is sufficiently long as to resist brute force encryption. Is it possible that you're mistaken?

Of course it's possible I'm mistaken. But not because of any of the reasons given here so far.

He's not claiming that you can brute-force the encryption key -- he's proposing another way to brute-force the PIN itself that won't trigger exponential timeouts or auto-wipe of the device. I don't know if he's right or wrong, but let's at least make sure we're clear what his argument is first.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com