Apple’s lawsuit against the cybersecurity firm Corellium is said to have a “deterrent effect” on certain types of iOS security research, according to several experts in the field.
Apple says that the Corellium emulator copies iOS to “demanding details”.
In August 2019, Apple launched a copyright lawsuit against security specialist Corellium, claiming that the company’s iOS emulation software “had copied everything” on the giant’s mobile operating system. technology.
Since then, Apple has intensified its legal struggle with the Florida-based firm, citing to appear the files of Santander Bank and the intelligence firm L3Harris Technologies concerning their use of the Corellium emulator.
The escalating legal dust has created a “deterrent” in the iPhone-based security industry, a researcher told Motherboard. A handful of security researchers to whom the publication has expressed their fear of reprisals from Apple for the use of Corellium emulation software.
Some of these experts also claim that Apple’s copyright lawsuit is less about intellectual property and more about maintaining control over iOS security research and taking into account the development of third-party tools. iPhone hacking.
In several court cases, Apple maintains that the purpose of its lawsuit is not “to obstruct the research in good faith on safety”, but simply to prevent Corellium from marketing its works protected by copyright.
As part of its legal defense, Corellium said that its emulator product helps secure Apple devices by allowing researchers to find vulnerabilities in the corporate platform.
“This litigation poses an existential threat to an open and healthy security research community, not only for Apple products, but for consumer devices in general,” Corellium said in a statement sent by its lawyers.
The United States Department of Justice recently requested that Apple’s filing of Corellium co-founder Chris Wade be delayed until it can examine the evidence that Apple’s lawyers would present before questioning it.
Apple’s lawyer on Friday filed a petition against the order, saying the government has provided “no compelling reason, much less evidence,” to justify the delay.