3/27/2026 at 4:43:00 PM
Trash headline from TechCrunch; the exact statement from Apple was:> We are not aware of any successful mercenary spyware attacks against a Lockdown Mode-enabled Apple device.
by 827a
3/27/2026 at 4:45:48 PM
Good call-out, and it's also nice to see that Apple tried to speak accurately here.by everdrive
3/27/2026 at 7:06:35 PM
> nice to see that Apple tried to speak accurately here.The key word being "mercenary", which does not rule out first-party spyware.
by sgbeal
3/27/2026 at 7:12:16 PM
So in essence they- can give away your data for free - get hacked by nation-state such as Iran - get hacked by mercenary spyware and not notice
and their statement would still be correct. Now that's an awful lot of qualifiers. Plus that's just what they say.
by stephbook
3/27/2026 at 7:18:41 PM
Mercenary also excludes people do it for funsies and not getting paid.by jmalicki
3/27/2026 at 6:13:23 PM
Oh geez. Legal did not give them the go ahead to make the unqualified statement: “We are not aware of any successful spyware attacks” they had to explicitly qualify it with “mercenary”.by Veserv
3/27/2026 at 6:15:13 PM
There are more weasel words "we are not aware" - means they actually don't know if such attack was successful, "successful" - what is the definition of success? Maybe attackers got access, but didn't find anything interesting?Apple is digging itself into a hole.
by varispeed
3/27/2026 at 6:45:18 PM
I think you are, the words make perfect sense. They know of a lot of attack attempts, and so far they have no reason to believe any were successful. Success can mean a lot of different things, why list it all out (were able to extract data, install malicious software, encrypt files with ransomware, delete any data, etc).by scottyah
3/27/2026 at 8:01:28 PM
They can be perfectly aware of nation-state hacks. These are exactly the weasel qualifiers used by the NSA when they were claiming not to be watching the communications of US citizens. "No intercepts were made under program X" specifically sidesteps all the shady stuff under program Y.by quantified
3/27/2026 at 7:08:59 PM
They have a legal department carefully directing what they say. In a court of law, their lawyers will successfully argue that they are beholden to only the precise letter of their statement. Are you arguing that their lawyers are incompetent and imprecise in their wording? If so, what evidence do you have that their lawyers are incompetent?In light of the correct legal interpretation of their words, being only the specific letters, we can see that your interpretation is incorrect.
> They know of a lot of attack attempts
No, their statement says nothing about attack attempts.
> so far they have no reason to believe any were successful
No, their statement says nothing about their belief, only their explicit knowledge. Their statement says nothing about their investigation practices or whether they even attempted to investigate and learn about attacks. Their statement says nothing about non-mercenary attacks.
Their statement is technically correct as long as any successful attacks they know about are not explicitly known to be committed by mercenarys.
by Veserv
3/27/2026 at 6:54:57 PM
How do you know their definition isn't only "received extortion letters" and "exfiltrate data" is fine as long as it didn't lead to the former?by sally_glance
3/27/2026 at 6:58:17 PM
>"successful" - what is the definition of success?At risk of stating the obvious, isn't success "hacked it and no one ever found out (at the time)"? By definition, Apple could probably only be aware of unsuccessful attacks. Though that's not guaranteed either, considering all the myriad failure modes that there must be.
by NoMoreNicksLeft
3/27/2026 at 4:49:35 PM
Isn't that assumed? Obviously Apple can't check every iPhone owner to see if they have been hacked now or in the pastby Braxton1980
3/27/2026 at 4:54:43 PM
TechCrunch misrepresented Apple's statement.by mulmen
3/27/2026 at 6:29:24 PM
Yep. It's business as usual for that rag.by calmbonsai
3/27/2026 at 6:06:02 PM
No... they can't... obviously...by steve1977