The narrative here--which I feel like a lot of people aren't grokking somehow--is that to analyze Apple's CSAM tools you need to be able to extract them from a phone to debug and work with them, which involves reverse engineering the implementation; and Apple recently said quite strongly that a reason you can trust their client-side CSAM is because, by virtue of being on the client, security researchers can do this analysis.

Only, simultaneously, Apple hates the idea that people ever should get access to the software that runs on their phones and reverse engineer it: they tend to downplay results that are found in a way that often involves going to war with the security research community, they sued Corellium--which provides tooling to security researchers--and insisted that their clients were doing things that were inherently illegal, and they are so stingy with giving general access to their devices that not only can you not opt out of their lockdown they won't sell you special bright yellow open devices either... after many years of pleading with them, they finally decided to allow some researchers access, but it requires not only being invited but then signing off on gag clauses that are generally considered to violate the ethical responsibility of practitioners.

It thereby feels like Apple is talking out of both sides of their mouth... though, of course, that's nothing new for them :/. On the one hand, they want to claim that security researchers are important to their overall security strategy; but, on the other, they simultaneously abuse and prosecute people who dare to either directly pull apart their systems or have the audacity to provide the tools required for others to do so.

And, for anyone who is stuck in the mental frame "BuT I tHoUgHt ApPlE lOvEs SeCuRiTy ReSeArChErS", barely over a year ago (wow time flies when you are living alone and physically falling apart during a pandemic, huh? ;P), I wrote a thread on Twitter that documented a ton of the issues that we run into with Apple, including using specific examples, and touched on this lawsuit against Corellium. FWIW, I don't personally know of anyone in the security industry that thinks Apple is doing well on this front, and I doubt many exist.

https://twitter.com/saurik/status/1295024384596312064?s=21

Also: here is a thread on Twitter from a few days ago (started by Runa Sandvik, the senior director of information security at the New York Times) about Apple's recent statements, as well as a direct link to a reply sub-thread from Kurt Opsahl--the Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel of the EFF--that quickly got updated re the Corellium appeal.

https://twitter.com/runasand/status/1426232172109869057?s=21

https://twitter.com/kurtopsahl/status/1426314930001567751?s=...

(edit) I am realizing it is probably also worth explaining another key detail here that is probably more than just a bit confusing: one reason this is particular news right now is because, in addition to the big CSAM background story, Apple just announced an appeal of the case they lost to Corellium.

I think it is important to triple underscore that: a lot of people know about how Corellium and Apple recently settled, but that was over other claims that Apple (seemingly) gave up on; Apple can't appeal that AFAIK. However, in December, Apple had most of its (extremely weak...) case dismissed by the judge.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-corellium-idUSKBN29...

> U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith ruled in favor of Corellium LLC, saying its software emulating the iOS operating system that runs on the iPhone and iPad amounted to “fair use” because it was “transformative” and helped developers find security flaws.

It almost certainly isn't the case that Apple decided to do this appeal because of Corellium's press release, as it almost certainly takes more than less-than-a-day to put that together and file it ;P. It will be interesting to see if Apple manages to put together a more coherent argument in their appeal.