That is generally what is meant by new. People always object whenever any software is described as new and it is ridiculous. It isn't just software where we don't start from scratch and yet still call things new. iPhone's themselves are a good example, but the examples are everywhere.
If you think this request doesn't represent significant work then I question your ability to estimate such things. Just making a version of iOS that runs without being written to disk and is never written to disk, as specifically requested, would be a significant task. Being sufficiently satisfied that your code restricting it to a single device is correct and not exploitable is not something I would care to be responsible for ever. I can't believe people keep trivializing it. Defense in depth is generally considered necessary. Removing all the locks but Apple's signing key and calling that just as secure is foolish.
The master key analogy is sound if it is referring to the technique rather than the specific software. Does anyone believe this will only ever be done once, or that it will always be done correctly every time, including every other manufacturer? Surely we can agree there is some risk here.
They said no and explained what they did instead of unlocking. Seems so obvious that you must want to argue about the definition of unlock? Really?
I do not know how Apple could more clearly state that they could make this tool. How could you come away with an inaccurate impression?
If you think this request doesn't represent significant work then I question your ability to estimate such things. Just making a version of iOS that runs without being written to disk and is never written to disk, as specifically requested, would be a significant task. Being sufficiently satisfied that your code restricting it to a single device is correct and not exploitable is not something I would care to be responsible for ever. I can't believe people keep trivializing it. Defense in depth is generally considered necessary. Removing all the locks but Apple's signing key and calling that just as secure is foolish.
The master key analogy is sound if it is referring to the technique rather than the specific software. Does anyone believe this will only ever be done once, or that it will always be done correctly every time, including every other manufacturer? Surely we can agree there is some risk here.
They said no and explained what they did instead of unlocking. Seems so obvious that you must want to argue about the definition of unlock? Really?
I do not know how Apple could more clearly state that they could make this tool. How could you come away with an inaccurate impression?