Apple needs to explain that bug that resurfaced deleted photos(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Apple needs to explain that bug that resurfaced deleted photos
https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/20/24161152/apple-ios-17-photo-bug
68 comments
10+ years that would be horrific. I was reading couple of years. The update was also only for iPhone X upwards which would mean the pictures must have been from the cloud.
Is there a source for the claim?
Is there a source for the claim?
There’s not much to tell to the average user beyond “database did an oopsie”.
A post mortem would be fun for me as software developer, but is ultimately of limited value to me or lay people because the cause is already communicated.
I understand that the subject of the issue, it being photos, might be a bit touchy, but the mechanics and the nature of the bug is nothing special and anyone who moved past their “Hello, world” phase will immediately understand the kind of bug that was in play here.
Photos are stored “in” a photo library.
On Apple systems the photo library is just a package (i.e., essentially a folder) and in it is an SQL database that keeps track of photos and their attributes based on a GUID in some 70 odd tables.
The photos and videos themselves are stored in folders within that package (i.e., the file system). But it is ultimately the SQL database that is deemed authoritative and that decides what you see in the Photos app.
Different daemons and chron jobs use the database to sync photos to and from the cloud and to clean up photos when marked for deletion.
All it takes for this to occur is for a photo to be marked as deleted, without it actually being deleted in the underlying folder, for it to seem deleted.
And all it takes for it to show back up is for 17.5 to index through the folders and based on what found “repair” the database.
The database also gets changed from time to time, so it could also simply be a new way of keeping track of deleted photos and in the process of migrating to the new database version taking a conservative approach and assuming that photos that are still present to be wrongly marked as deleted.
It’s always better to restore and let the user decide than to make destructive assumptions.
After this process resurfaces photos then they get synced with iCloud, just like any other photo.
The implication that this doesn’t explain the resurfacing of old photos from years ago and many devices ago is rather weird.
Most people don’t start fresh when they get a new Apple device and instead transfer data over or restore form a backup, putting in place the corrupted database. To say nothing of the database file being synchronized across devices via iCloud.
In fact, that only makes the corrupted database explanation more likely.
In the earlier days of iOS, Apple was still finding its way on how to effectively manage the library, making some significant overhauls in addition to overhauls to switch from Photo Stream to iCloud Photo Library.
So it’s not unlikely it was during that period this issue snuck into the database.
Like I said, it’s unfortunate that it affects photos, but otherwise not a shocking bug by any means and the solution to include orphaned photos back into the library as opposed to destructively deleting them is good practice.
The only thing that might’ve been better is if the user was provided with a prompt informing them of the find and perhaps asking them to make a choice.
It’s clear however that they didn’t think it would be an issue that would affect many users and using scary technical words like “corrupted” go against the kind of language and UX Apple tries to stick to.
A miscalculation perhaps, but hardly worthy of the drama that it’s being milked for.
A post mortem would be fun for me as software developer, but is ultimately of limited value to me or lay people because the cause is already communicated.
I understand that the subject of the issue, it being photos, might be a bit touchy, but the mechanics and the nature of the bug is nothing special and anyone who moved past their “Hello, world” phase will immediately understand the kind of bug that was in play here.
Photos are stored “in” a photo library.
On Apple systems the photo library is just a package (i.e., essentially a folder) and in it is an SQL database that keeps track of photos and their attributes based on a GUID in some 70 odd tables.
The photos and videos themselves are stored in folders within that package (i.e., the file system). But it is ultimately the SQL database that is deemed authoritative and that decides what you see in the Photos app.
Different daemons and chron jobs use the database to sync photos to and from the cloud and to clean up photos when marked for deletion.
All it takes for this to occur is for a photo to be marked as deleted, without it actually being deleted in the underlying folder, for it to seem deleted.
And all it takes for it to show back up is for 17.5 to index through the folders and based on what found “repair” the database.
The database also gets changed from time to time, so it could also simply be a new way of keeping track of deleted photos and in the process of migrating to the new database version taking a conservative approach and assuming that photos that are still present to be wrongly marked as deleted.
It’s always better to restore and let the user decide than to make destructive assumptions.
After this process resurfaces photos then they get synced with iCloud, just like any other photo.
The implication that this doesn’t explain the resurfacing of old photos from years ago and many devices ago is rather weird.
Most people don’t start fresh when they get a new Apple device and instead transfer data over or restore form a backup, putting in place the corrupted database. To say nothing of the database file being synchronized across devices via iCloud.
In fact, that only makes the corrupted database explanation more likely.
In the earlier days of iOS, Apple was still finding its way on how to effectively manage the library, making some significant overhauls in addition to overhauls to switch from Photo Stream to iCloud Photo Library.
So it’s not unlikely it was during that period this issue snuck into the database.
Like I said, it’s unfortunate that it affects photos, but otherwise not a shocking bug by any means and the solution to include orphaned photos back into the library as opposed to destructively deleting them is good practice.
The only thing that might’ve been better is if the user was provided with a prompt informing them of the find and perhaps asking them to make a choice.
It’s clear however that they didn’t think it would be an issue that would affect many users and using scary technical words like “corrupted” go against the kind of language and UX Apple tries to stick to.
A miscalculation perhaps, but hardly worthy of the drama that it’s being milked for.
I wonder if the database corruption stemmed from the job responsible for deleting photos after approximately 40 days. This job likely involves two main steps: (1) deleting the actual file and (2) updating the database. At guess, in some rare cases, step (2) might occur even if step (1) fails. Could this issue have arisen because step (1) occasionally failed due to changes in iOS's security model over the years? Did the photos reappear when the database was rebuilt or reindexed from files stored on the device?
With the messaging based hacks exploiting images encoders, pdfs etc it seems plausible to me that they added some protections that could have made file I/O more sandboxed and accidentally over-sandboxed it in some scenarios and the error codes weren't being checked.
With the messaging based hacks exploiting images encoders, pdfs etc it seems plausible to me that they added some protections that could have made file I/O more sandboxed and accidentally over-sandboxed it in some scenarios and the error codes weren't being checked.
Some people said that they wiped the device and subsequently sold it, and their photos reappeared for the new user!
https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/ios/comments/1cspwh2/my_old_p...
That wouldn't fit the scenario you described.
https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/ios/comments/1cspwh2/my_old_p...
That wouldn't fit the scenario you described.
I have had instances where previously "archived" photos reappeared among my regular photos on Android devices. It's a faith-shattering moment. Let's face it, most of us have some amount of photos or screenshots we don't want unexpectedly popping up when other people may be able to see them. In my case, it may have been user error resulting from the confusing interplay between my camera app, the default Samsung photo album, and Google Photos. I guess. Ultimately, I removed permissions for accessing photos from every app except for Google Photos to reduce the chance for confusion.
Does anyone have a simple, cross-platform solution for storing (yet easily accessing) private photos and videos? Or do most people just resort to living dangerously?
Does anyone have a simple, cross-platform solution for storing (yet easily accessing) private photos and videos? Or do most people just resort to living dangerously?
You have two choices if you take a photo you don't want others to see - do it on a point-and-shoot (without any wireless capability) camera, and only import the photos to a permanently air-gapped computer with all I/O ports disabled, ideally encrypting them on the computer and destroying the original digital copy. Or use 35mm film and develop the film your self and store the photos inside a safe.
Anything else is "living dangerously".
Anything else is "living dangerously".
I think that's a little extreme and there is a 3rd option that would be adequate for most people: using software on a normal non-airgapped computer that simply doesn't exfiltrate your data.
Most people do NOT need security from state level threat actors, they just need software that respects them, which of course no longer includes mainstream operating systems or applications, today.
Most people do NOT need security from state level threat actors, they just need software that respects them, which of course no longer includes mainstream operating systems or applications, today.
There are plenty of exploits for all kinds of devices that can let an average hacker siphon off someone's data - and people often help them do it. There is no such thing as an internet connected device that will keep your data from prying eyes.
Yeah, I just don't want the wrong friend to accidentally see my dick. The state can look all it wants, if that's what its into.
This popped up on HN sometime ago
https://ente.io/
https://ente.io/
the obvious solution, local storage.
If I recall correctly from messing around via dev tools, deleting contacts from my android phone just "soft deletes" them as well. It might not have been contacts but there was something in a database I did not expect to be there. I feel like this kind of stuff would be an actual scandal as recently as 2010 but we've just accepted living in a panopticon and false ownership of tech.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Related:
Apple Releases iOS 17.5.1 with Fix for Reappearing Photos Bug
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40426557
Troubling iOS 17.5 Bug Reportedly Resurfacing Old Deleted Photos
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40366091
iOS 17.5 is allegedly resurfacing pictures that were deleted years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40372867
Apple Releases iOS 17.5.1 with Fix for Reappearing Photos Bug
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40426557
Troubling iOS 17.5 Bug Reportedly Resurfacing Old Deleted Photos
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40366091
iOS 17.5 is allegedly resurfacing pictures that were deleted years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40372867
This is not a dupe of those 2 posts you provided. This post is about the update issued by Apple yesterday (those 2 posts are from 6 days ago) and is also a more broader discussion calling for Apple to release details of the bug.
Fair enough, Related... there's already a number of threads on the bug is the point. More discussion there.
Related doesn't meant dupe.
I agree with @lolinder that you are being overzealous about marking dupes. I understand the utility of preventing dupes but your behaviour is coming across as extremely bad faith here especially considering your top link is same as your last link and is pointing to a 5 day old post.
@dang Please look.
I agree with @lolinder that you are being overzealous about marking dupes. I understand the utility of preventing dupes but your behaviour is coming across as extremely bad faith here especially considering your top link is same as your last link and is pointing to a 5 day old post.
@dang Please look.
[deleted]
Yeah, @ChrisArchitect, you're often a bit overzealous about marking things as dupe. I hope that you weren't the one who flagged this off the front page, either, because this deserves to be seen and was making a lot more progress than the previous discussions before it suddenly fell off.
EDIT: I appreciate your attempt to clean up your comment in response to feedback, but your top link currently is the same as your bottom link, and even if it were correct it still only has either 2 or 1 comment depending on which of the two submissions by that title you meant to link to. That is well within the range of non-uptake that deserves a second chance.
EDIT: I appreciate your attempt to clean up your comment in response to feedback, but your top link currently is the same as your bottom link, and even if it were correct it still only has either 2 or 1 comment depending on which of the two submissions by that title you meant to link to. That is well within the range of non-uptake that deserves a second chance.
nothing flagged
it 'fell off' because other things replaced it. Natural. Discussion still ongoing here. More discussion last week on a number of other threads, when it was news.
it 'fell off' because other things replaced it. Natural. Discussion still ongoing here. More discussion last week on a number of other threads, when it was news.
No, this wasn't natural. You may not have triggered it, maybe it was software, but I watched it rapidly rise from nothing to position #7 and then it dropped from #7 to #76 in 5 minutes. That's not natural churn, that was caused by user or software flags.
https://hnrankings.info/40433384/
https://hnrankings.info/40433384/
Did you actually read the article, and my and lolinder's comments? Because this is different from last week.
Is it really that different though? There are now 5+ threads going on the same bug, with a lot of the same sentiments, repeating. Verge and some of these news sources aren't exactly on the ball with this stuff, it's just same news. There was a fix/update, 24 hrs ago, good. Whatever, moving on. The other threads provide some more of the insights people were sharing around the bug etc, more than what might be repeated here so far.
I think something you miss about the HN dynamic is that posts that fall off the front page quickly almost invariably have low-quality discussion compared to the ones that stay on the front page for longer.
Some of that is because low-quality discussions fall of the front page quickly, but most of it is because the first comments on a post are always low quality, because they're disproportionately from drive-by posters who read the title but not the article or the existing comments. If a post falls off the front page quickly, then those comments become the only ones that get seen, which means even if someone comes along with a more thoughtful comment (unlikely) it ends up buried with no upvotes and no replies.
If you let a "dupe" that's finally catching on stay on the front page for a while, the conversation invariably becomes better as the thoughtful commenters arrive and begin to leave their mark on the conversation.
In other words: just because 5 threads are ongoing and uninteresting doesn't mean that this one didn't stand a good chance of having a good, useful conversation if left alone.
Some of that is because low-quality discussions fall of the front page quickly, but most of it is because the first comments on a post are always low quality, because they're disproportionately from drive-by posters who read the title but not the article or the existing comments. If a post falls off the front page quickly, then those comments become the only ones that get seen, which means even if someone comes along with a more thoughtful comment (unlikely) it ends up buried with no upvotes and no replies.
If you let a "dupe" that's finally catching on stay on the front page for a while, the conversation invariably becomes better as the thoughtful commenters arrive and begin to leave their mark on the conversation.
In other words: just because 5 threads are ongoing and uninteresting doesn't mean that this one didn't stand a good chance of having a good, useful conversation if left alone.
Like I said, related doesn't meant dupe and this is different from those posts. When Apple's CSAM thing happened, we had multiple related posts too but they weren't dupes.
I won't respond further because I don't want this turning into a flame war.
I won't respond further because I don't want this turning into a flame war.
Please stop with the [dupe] comments. No one is asking you to do it, and you’re not doing a good job of it.
[deleted]
Relevant Qwantz from today: https://qwantz.com/index.php?comic=4194
If you were to assume a dystopian cause, you assume a bug accidentally revealed the nefarious plan, and the charitable view would assume a bug broke proper deletion of physical files when their db record was set for removal, or some such. Either way, we assume a bug. But, the conspiracy theory requires additional assumptions and is, all else being equal, less likely, overall.
I think the POV chosen, one way or the other, reveals an interesting bias, like that white/gold/blue dress. But I find this even more interesting because probably most of us here have worked at software companies as developers, and know personally how utterly normal unintentional bugs like a failed deletion bug would be, particularly if black-box QA is oblivious to it because everything seems fine. No company is immune, and Apple has had some pretty embarrassing bugs over the years.
I think the POV chosen, one way or the other, reveals an interesting bias, like that white/gold/blue dress. But I find this even more interesting because probably most of us here have worked at software companies as developers, and know personally how utterly normal unintentional bugs like a failed deletion bug would be, particularly if black-box QA is oblivious to it because everything seems fine. No company is immune, and Apple has had some pretty embarrassing bugs over the years.
> If anything, Apple ought to comment simply because it markets itself as a company that cares about your privacy.
The clue is in this sentence. The privacy is marketing.
Seeking an explanation from them reeks of coping desparation, but not unexpected if you have bought heavily into it. I'd say this could be a lesson for many, but looking at similar past incidents with them, I am not very hopeful.
The clue is in this sentence. The privacy is marketing.
Seeking an explanation from them reeks of coping desparation, but not unexpected if you have bought heavily into it. I'd say this could be a lesson for many, but looking at similar past incidents with them, I am not very hopeful.
> The privacy is marketing.
That makes 0 sense. If that were the case all their privacy efforts would simply be words in marketing / advertising, vs built into every single product and service they offer from the ground up. In the short term, there jobs would be 100% easier and more lucrative to not focus so much on privacy. Easier development, easier not having to fight back the government, and when data gets sold/compromised, they could just say that happens in all other companies (not focused on privacy), so they are no different. Instead they go to ungodly amounts to make it core to their company. That doesn't mean they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. There business isn't based on advertising (like Google and Facebook) fortunately, so in the long terms their pro-consumer privacy rights, brings them in more money so they are able to still meet their fiscal obligations after a publicly traded company. Facebook and Google's business are built around advertising and selling customer data, so for them, privacy is much more about marketing since making it core would counter their entire current business model. Of course even with them, it's not just marketing, since privacy is fiscally beneficial just to far less extent.
> easier not having to fight back the government
You have a lot of work to do convincing anyone that's the case: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...
You have a lot of work to do convincing anyone that's the case: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...
Apple has made plenty of solid tangible contributions to privacy on both Mac and iOS. It's not fair to say it's all just marketing.
I worked there for years, and privacy was taken very very seriously. It was in the DNA of every project I saw. There was open contempt for companies that extract value from your personal information.
> There was open contempt for companies that extract value from your personal information.
Maybe back in the day. However, for the last few years, Apple is in the business of personalized ads in App Store, Apple News, and Stocks etc. So they do "extract value from your personal information" just like other companies such as Facebook, Google etc.
Maybe back in the day. However, for the last few years, Apple is in the business of personalized ads in App Store, Apple News, and Stocks etc. So they do "extract value from your personal information" just like other companies such as Facebook, Google etc.
Apple offers personalized ads, but as you can see from all their quarterly results, that is not their business but rather a tiny portion compared to companies such as Meta and Google that advertising is their business.
Apple shows what they do with your data even at a per app level: https://www.apple.com/privacy/labels/ as well as reviewing Apple's Privacy Policy vs Meta/Google and see they are night and day from those companies. Again this doesn't make Apple better/good, and others worse/bad, as that depends on who one is and what they value. For instance Google offers far superior services in many aspects than Apple because they take advantage of all that customer data in ways Apple chooses not to.
> Maybe back in the day Assuming you may not be an Apple customer or familiar with all the constant flow of new features in the current day Apple has been releasing focusing on Privacy. https://www.apple.com/privacy/
Apple shows what they do with your data even at a per app level: https://www.apple.com/privacy/labels/ as well as reviewing Apple's Privacy Policy vs Meta/Google and see they are night and day from those companies. Again this doesn't make Apple better/good, and others worse/bad, as that depends on who one is and what they value. For instance Google offers far superior services in many aspects than Apple because they take advantage of all that customer data in ways Apple chooses not to.
> Maybe back in the day Assuming you may not be an Apple customer or familiar with all the constant flow of new features in the current day Apple has been releasing focusing on Privacy. https://www.apple.com/privacy/
Do they "extract value from your personal information"? Answer is yes. Also, the App Store ads further help increase apple's cut from in app purchases. So one must look at ads + App Store revenue together imo.
If the ads that Apple shows me in the App Store, Apple News, etc. are supposed to be personalized, then Apple is really, _really,_ *really* bad at personalization. They're clearly not extracting any meaningul private information (or public information, for that matter) about me at the moment.
So how do you explain the lack of transparency on this issue from Apple?
One person wiped their device as per Apple's instructions, sold it, and the new buyer had the seller's old photos appear on the device!
https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/ios/comments/1cspwh2/my_old_p...
Wiping it should have deleted the encryption keys off that device and destroyed all data, no?
A single handwavy comment about "database corruption" is not enough for such a gigantic issue.
One person wiped their device as per Apple's instructions, sold it, and the new buyer had the seller's old photos appear on the device!
https://undelete.pullpush.io/r/ios/comments/1cspwh2/my_old_p...
Wiping it should have deleted the encryption keys off that device and destroyed all data, no?
A single handwavy comment about "database corruption" is not enough for such a gigantic issue.
Their lack of external transparency in no way refutes my assertion that they take privacy very seriously internally (and that it's not just a marketing ploy).
Also, taking something very seriously does not mean there can't be critical bugs.
Also, taking something very seriously does not mean there can't be critical bugs.
Unfortunately, "Trust me bro, they care" isn't good enough.
Database corruption can't explain how the photos can return to an iPad after wiping, if the encryption key has been changed as their documentation claims.
Unless the photos are actually linked to the device and not the actual account, which would be stupid and not how they described it works... or if it isn't encrypted at all - also not how it was marketed/described to work.
A pathetic one-line non-explanation for such a giant bug, that doesn't even align with the facts of what actually happened, is not congruent with the actions you'd expect from a company that cares about privacy.
They need to make a statement explaining how that could happen, and what they've done to prevent it happening again.
Database corruption can't explain how the photos can return to an iPad after wiping, if the encryption key has been changed as their documentation claims.
Unless the photos are actually linked to the device and not the actual account, which would be stupid and not how they described it works... or if it isn't encrypted at all - also not how it was marketed/described to work.
A pathetic one-line non-explanation for such a giant bug, that doesn't even align with the facts of what actually happened, is not congruent with the actions you'd expect from a company that cares about privacy.
They need to make a statement explaining how that could happen, and what they've done to prevent it happening again.
> A pathetic one-line non-explanation for such a giant bug, that doesn't even align with the facts of what actually happened, is not congruent with the actions you'd expect from a company that cares about privacy.
I disagree. External statements are guided by legal and comms departments (along with Engineering of course, but eng never has final say on what goes out).
External statements don't necessarily have any relation to how things are being handled internally. And this fuck-up (assuming it's as described) also doesn't reflect whether the eng team made a genuine best effort to ensure full privacy. Teams make mistakes, even huge ones. From personal experience, the biggest bugs come from the smallest root cause -- that single typo in a single file that somehow snaked a narrow path through every test on the production pipeline.
Now, is Apple working hard to fix this? I have no idea. All I know (and my original assertion) is that when I worked there not long ago, privacy was genuinely a Very Big Deal that was a top (often the top) company-wide north star.
I disagree. External statements are guided by legal and comms departments (along with Engineering of course, but eng never has final say on what goes out).
External statements don't necessarily have any relation to how things are being handled internally. And this fuck-up (assuming it's as described) also doesn't reflect whether the eng team made a genuine best effort to ensure full privacy. Teams make mistakes, even huge ones. From personal experience, the biggest bugs come from the smallest root cause -- that single typo in a single file that somehow snaked a narrow path through every test on the production pipeline.
Now, is Apple working hard to fix this? I have no idea. All I know (and my original assertion) is that when I worked there not long ago, privacy was genuinely a Very Big Deal that was a top (often the top) company-wide north star.
So privacy is (was?) the highest priority, but when there's a massive privacy failure, the legal and comms departments will say anything that denies liability, regardless of the veracity or facts of the matter.
Got it.
Got it.
Our friend above is likely under NDA, so they won’t be able to comment on intricacies.
Luckily, I am not under an NDA, and I can tell you that the Reddit post is nonsense. A straight-up lie when you assume bad faith or poor recollection if you assume good faith.
The scenario described there, and further expanded upon by OP in comments is pretty much impossible. I hedge only because of an astronomical unlikely probability that everything in the universe aligned perfectly.
As you seem to be aware, encryption keys are involved, and that involvement lies at the root of the impossibility.
Say you’re inclined to believe that the Secure Enclave that stores this key has a massive bug that doesn’t delete the key upon wiping. That alone wouldn’t explain a scenario like that.
In addition to not deleting that key, the OS must’ve been unable to detect and try to use that key until some serious potent code was introduced in 17.5.
Also, during the wipe, the encrypted data partition that goes with the key must’ve not been deleted and gone unnoticed by the OS up until 17.5.
In addition, the OS must’ve kept the key intact, and ignored the existence of the encrypted data partition. Creating a new encrypted data partition with an accompanying key and acting as if it was all business as usual.
Then, suddenly, 17.5 comes around. It would have to have seen two encrypted data partitions with two encryption keys, mounted the most recent encrypted data partition, and decrypted it with the most recent encryption key without any issues and hiccups, only to then do something quite miraculous.
It would, at that point, do something that it was never designed to do, namely decrypt and mount the old data partition, all while the most recent one is already mounted, grab only a bunch of old photos from a corrupted database, nothing to else, and merge it into the database located on the most recent data partition.
All this while ignoring many complexities related to key pairs tied to iCloud accounts that I’ve omitted for simplicity’s sake and without throwing up a single error, much less a respring or, more likely, a kernel panic.
Just the part about mounting two partitions alone would cause huge issues.
It’s nearly impossible to do this on purpose due to hardware limitations on storage and the way the Secure Enclave works. To entertain a string of bugs that would execute this perfectly is just silly.
Who needs jailbreakers and the likes of Pegasus spending hours designing chain exploits when the OS stumbles into perfectly executed bugs that defy the law of physics?
Luckily, I am not under an NDA, and I can tell you that the Reddit post is nonsense. A straight-up lie when you assume bad faith or poor recollection if you assume good faith.
The scenario described there, and further expanded upon by OP in comments is pretty much impossible. I hedge only because of an astronomical unlikely probability that everything in the universe aligned perfectly.
As you seem to be aware, encryption keys are involved, and that involvement lies at the root of the impossibility.
Say you’re inclined to believe that the Secure Enclave that stores this key has a massive bug that doesn’t delete the key upon wiping. That alone wouldn’t explain a scenario like that.
In addition to not deleting that key, the OS must’ve been unable to detect and try to use that key until some serious potent code was introduced in 17.5.
Also, during the wipe, the encrypted data partition that goes with the key must’ve not been deleted and gone unnoticed by the OS up until 17.5.
In addition, the OS must’ve kept the key intact, and ignored the existence of the encrypted data partition. Creating a new encrypted data partition with an accompanying key and acting as if it was all business as usual.
Then, suddenly, 17.5 comes around. It would have to have seen two encrypted data partitions with two encryption keys, mounted the most recent encrypted data partition, and decrypted it with the most recent encryption key without any issues and hiccups, only to then do something quite miraculous.
It would, at that point, do something that it was never designed to do, namely decrypt and mount the old data partition, all while the most recent one is already mounted, grab only a bunch of old photos from a corrupted database, nothing to else, and merge it into the database located on the most recent data partition.
All this while ignoring many complexities related to key pairs tied to iCloud accounts that I’ve omitted for simplicity’s sake and without throwing up a single error, much less a respring or, more likely, a kernel panic.
Just the part about mounting two partitions alone would cause huge issues.
It’s nearly impossible to do this on purpose due to hardware limitations on storage and the way the Secure Enclave works. To entertain a string of bugs that would execute this perfectly is just silly.
Who needs jailbreakers and the likes of Pegasus spending hours designing chain exploits when the OS stumbles into perfectly executed bugs that defy the law of physics?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Just seems odd to me that he would make that whole story up.
I know it's the internet but there doesn't seem to be a compelling motivation for someone to do that.
I think it's reasonable to expect a more detailed explanation from Apple, when it's closed source software from a company that claims to value privacy, yet exhibiting a confidence-eroding problem like this.
Just seems odd to me that he would make that whole story up.
I know it's the internet but there doesn't seem to be a compelling motivation for someone to do that.
I think it's reasonable to expect a more detailed explanation from Apple, when it's closed source software from a company that claims to value privacy, yet exhibiting a confidence-eroding problem like this.
Probably soft deleted or with TTL + archiving. Hard delete is very technically challenging at that scale.
Can you elaborate on what about the scale of "a few devices and one user's iCloud backup" makes hard delete challenging? A 30-day period seems like plenty of time to propagate the "Alice really does want to delete this photo on 6/21" message to all devices and all servers where you might have backups.
And even if it is challenging, it shouldn't even need to be said that soft deleting photos of all things would be completely and totally irresponsible. This isn't some metadata in a business app, some of those deleted photos are extremely sensitive.
And even if it is challenging, it shouldn't even need to be said that soft deleting photos of all things would be completely and totally irresponsible. This isn't some metadata in a business app, some of those deleted photos are extremely sensitive.
The bug happened offline, on devices with cloud syncing disabled. Hard delete isn't challenging in a single-device scenario.
It's technically unchallenging, but is challenging to the goals of surveillance capitalism/states.
They should say it, so people could find alternatives for their photos, if they’re incapable of handling that, is understandable, the surprise, makes it annoying
My best guess is that they were on another device and they are syncing via iCloud and somehow the new iOS fixed a bug that was previously failing to resync photos that were only deleted locally.
Ehh. I really dislike this paragraph:
> Sure, you could push your glasses up your nose and say, “Well actually, no file is ever really deleted until it’s overwritten...” And while that is true, a reasonable customer would expect that when Apple says a deleted file is permanently deleted, this sort of thing shouldn’t even be possible.
You could stereotype it as well-actuallying, sure, but the reality is that "deleted files aren't actually deleted" has been the way computer storage has worked and still works, in the majority of cases, for a very, very long time. I don't disagree that a reasonable customer would expect that when they delete a file on their hard drive, it's gone forever. But if I were a writer for a tech publication, I don't think I could credibly write an article indignantly demanding an explanation for an undelete utility.
> Sure, you could push your glasses up your nose and say, “Well actually, no file is ever really deleted until it’s overwritten...” And while that is true, a reasonable customer would expect that when Apple says a deleted file is permanently deleted, this sort of thing shouldn’t even be possible.
You could stereotype it as well-actuallying, sure, but the reality is that "deleted files aren't actually deleted" has been the way computer storage has worked and still works, in the majority of cases, for a very, very long time. I don't disagree that a reasonable customer would expect that when they delete a file on their hard drive, it's gone forever. But if I were a writer for a tech publication, I don't think I could credibly write an article indignantly demanding an explanation for an undelete utility.
Worst fears come true. Its never deleted, its just marked as deleted. All your baddies are organized for Apple and the FBI.
Is anything ever truly “deleted” or just presented to users as such? I imagine once an image has been synced to the cloud, it’s stored somewhere forever, for reasons you hinted at.
I work for a large internet/tech company, and all images uploaded by users must be permanently retained somewhere per our legal policies, even if that means sending it to long-term storage after it’s been “deleted”. And if law enforcement submits a request asking for your files, we can pull it back up.
I work for a large internet/tech company, and all images uploaded by users must be permanently retained somewhere per our legal policies, even if that means sending it to long-term storage after it’s been “deleted”. And if law enforcement submits a request asking for your files, we can pull it back up.
They said it’s caused by database corruption. Easy enough to imagine that the thing tasked with doing actual deletion just couldn’t traverse to all of its targets.
I like this theory. I wonder the "Delete after 30 days" part used to work and then they added some more security features which made it not work unless the phone was unlocked. i.e. it could delete out of the DB but failed to delete the file if the phone was locked when the job ran.
10/10 PR Spin. I love the answer and can sleep well.
Yeah, though it's plausible that database corruption could just mean "the deleted flag was accidentally unset."
[deleted]
Apple was keeping shadow copies of files of pictures on iphones at least 10 years ago I witnessed myself that you couldn't access through conventional means (windows or mac, but linux worked), and I'm certain little has changed still but better hiding it.
If the US or China tells Apple to give them the contents of your phone now or ever, they damn well likely can and will. Same as Google or as Microsoft would.
If the US or China tells Apple to give them the contents of your phone now or ever, they damn well likely can and will. Same as Google or as Microsoft would.
Hah, pretty much what I said, nothing gets truly deleted on an Apple without some extraordinary measures. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/05/apple-clarifies-ios-...
Apple doesn't need to explain anything to you, peasant. What are you going to do, buy Microsoft?
"Bug" or "working as intended"?
Not sure what you mean, as yes, this is a bug they note they have now resolved. The bug presumably isn't that when you delete something on most any device that it's not actually deleted, but rather the bug is that something in their code allowed for a marked as deleted item (no longer accessible to the user), to become accessible to the user again without the user doing any data recovery services. While only Apple currently knows, but the most obvious answer would be that while they want to wait until enough users have applied the fix since perhaps even though incredible rare, it might be something a technical person could replicate on others devices if they know the bug. I would be very surprised if they don't eventually disclose it, but assume will be after it's no longer exploitable to the vast majority of people. All speculation of course.
[deleted]
From a company that claim themselves as defender of Privacy is a Fundamental Human Right (when they see fit, i.e let's ignore China).
This is from Victoria Song, but given The Verge still published it I am going to give them some credit as well. Strange as Apple's PR machine doesn't seems to be working. But you can also pick up all the other media who had Apple's PR influence.
And for those who still dont know, you should read The Submarine from Paul Graham
https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html.