Slashdot Mirror
iPhone, iPod Touch 1.1.1 Firmwares Jailbroken
vertigoCiel writes "Hackers Niacin and Dre have recently gained full read and write access to the filesystems of both the iPhone and the iPod Touch. The Jailbreak exploits a vulnerability in Safari's TIFF library to execute the necessary code when the specially crafted image is loaded. Access can then be permanently sustained by modifying the fstab file with iPhuc"
It's not the same hole, it just happens that TIFF is a very holey format.
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
I think what were saying is that they shouldn't have entered into the 'greedy' contact in the first place.
I don't know what it's like in the states, but the IPhone contract in the UK is appaling.
1: you have to pay for the phone, no one pays for a phone on contract in the uk they all come free with the contract.
2: You don't get much for your money with the contract compaired to other contracts even if the other contracts didn't come with a free phone.
3: There are other, better, open phones to be had for free on better cheaper contracts that can easily be unlocked.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
You knew the terms before you bought the phone. If you didn't like the terms, you should not have bought the phone. It's not all that hard.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Well, in this case closing down the iPhone will actually end up making it more secure... A bug in the TIFF library that allows some kind of code to execute sounds like a pretty serious security vulnerability. By locking down the iPhone, Apple has made it attractive to hackers of the non-malicious sort. They have found a vulnerability that Apple will now presumably have to plug, making the iPhone more secure against hackers of the malicious sort.
Of course, they shouldn't have this type of security bug in the first place... one wonders if it isn't also present on the Mac.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
On what grounds? People are hacking their own phones, which is explicitly permitted under the DMCA. Link (pdf warning). Apple is under no obligation to support it or make it easy, but they can't sue people for unlocking iPhones.
Reposted from: http://www.iphonealley.com/news/iphone-v1-1-1-jailbreak-apptapp-installation-guide
.ipsw if it comes as a .zip ./iphuc and hit return
Jailbreaking Steps
1. Sync and pray
1. Sync your iPhone with iTunes. You'll be losing all of your information, so it's a good idea to back up
2. Downgrade to v1.0.2
1. Hold down the Sleep/Wake and Home buttons at the same time for about 10 seconds. The phone should shut down.
2. When the phone shuts down, release the Sleep/Wake button but continue holding Home
3. Wait until iTunes recognizes the iPhone. The screen will appear to be off, but iTunes will eventually recognize the iPhone. When it does, let go.
4. A message will appear telling you to restore. Click OK
5. Using your favorite browser, download the v1.0.2 software from this location. You may need to rename to
6. Back in iTunes, hold Option on the Mac or Shift on the PC while clicking Restore. Navigate to the software you downloaded and select it.
7. The phone will restore, but it will fail. This is normal.
8. Your iPhone should show a yellow triangle. Run Nullriver's AppTapp. It should bring you back to the Activation step on the phone and show an error in the application. Disregard the error.
9. Run AppTapp again and it should succeed.
10. If not using an AT&T SIM, use INdependence to activate your iPhone. That's it!
3. Create Symlink
1. If you haven't already, install Nullriver's AppTapp
2. Go to http://conceitedsoftware.com/iphone/beta in iPhone's Safari. Tap "Yes" to add to Installer
3. Plug iPhone in and open iTunes. Make sure it's recognized before proceeding
4. Using Installer, install "Trip1Prepz" located under "System"
4. Upgrade to v1.1.1
1. In iTunes click "Upgrade" and not Restore. Restoring will ruin our progress.
2. Once upgraded to 1.1.1, close iTunes
5. Jailbreak
1. Download iPHUC and friends from Rapidshare
2. Extract the contents so that iphuc, fstab, and iphonefs are all on the Desktop
3. If you don't have libreadline, download it and extract the zip to your Macintosh HD
4. Open Terminal.app located in Applications>Utilities
5. Type cd ~/Desktop and hit return
6. Type
7. Type getfile
Profit Optimization != Greed*
In fact, Apple would be negligent and unethical if they did not act in the best interests of their stockholders.
Don't get so mad at a corporation just because they don't make the product that you want - you aren't their target demographic. There are plenty of "open" smartphones out there. If you want to get mad at a company, get mad at one of the makers of the open smartphones for not making one as cool as Apple's.
*This is assuming that their motivation for holding back 3rd party apps is monetary. It very well could be that they haven't stabilized the API, or that they have contractual obligations.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Every new encryption key for the firmware is another piece of data to help them crack that key and generate their own
No. Please read any entry level book into modern crypto.
Huh, sounds like the Kaiser, except the Kaiser is already out.
Future versions are promised to include a camera as well. In the meantime one may connect an USB camera although it is not an elegant solution.
But a camera is not on the list of wanted features for me. I'll buy myself such Neo for Christmas (hope it'll be ready till then).
The people behind openmoco are really awesome - they were willing to give up WLAN because there were no chipsets with open drivers. Luckily they have found aetheros chipset afterwards, so 1973 will support wireless networking.
Such approach is very rare in the times of profit-at-all-cost companies. They have earned my respect by having principles.
Thing is, most anytime you buy a cell phone, you're buying both the hardware and the network, not one or the other. It's just like the verizon commercials where the "network" (crowd of people) follows around those who just bought their phones, you don't get one without the other. While this may seem to be "unfair" or "unethical", remember that in a free market economy, any time someone sees a market they can go into and make a profit, they will. In this case, the major manufacturers of phones and major carriers have seen a market that they can make a profit on in a certain way and are doing so.
/. and repeatedly posting about how bad this is. And lest you call me a hypocrit, I'm in law school taking copyright classes and the like, so that perhaps I might be able to make a difference when finished.
Another thing, this really isn't so different from what most hardware manufacturers do. If you buy most video cards or processors/mobos (certain high end/hardcore gamer models excepted, of course), the licensing and warrantees say that if you attempt to modify the hardware or use it beyond its specs (i.e. overclocking either in hardware or with hacked drivers), the warrantee is void. And in further comparison, are not certain pieces of hardware locked to certain OSs or manufacturers? (I'm thinking the reversed PCI cards and mobos on Gateway PCs of a few years back, or the fact that most Compaq and HP pcs of the past have had entirely proprietary hardware that cannot be replaced with standard components.) Even Apple themselves (until recently) would not support or even officially allow Windows to run on their PCs (and they still do not allow their OS to run on IBM-compatible PCs, anything not made by Apple won't run it). How is this that different from the iPhone?
Nothing I've seen in the PC or cell phone markets should lead me to believe that what Apple is doing with the iPhone is any different that what every other company does with their products (including the price cut). What a shock, Apple is a company just like everyone else! So maybe the iPhone has some amzaing capabilities and we'd like it to be unlocked so we can exploit these as we'd like, but Apple makes the device, and can sell it as they see fit. If you don't like that, maybe it's time for you to either run for Congress and change the laws, or go and create a device that's as good (or better) on your own. Either way you'll be contributing more to society than sitting on
Since we're moving more towards specifics that haven't been well-trodden, I'll start with the standard disclaimer: IANAL. Nor am I, by any stretch, an expert on the inner workings of the FCC.
Having said that, however, I have read through the final rules of 47 CFR Part 2, Cognitive Radio Technologies and Software Defined Radios, and I see nothing that would lead me to believe that an iPhone is any more subject to it than would be any other smart phone.
There are many smart phones, for instance, running the PalmOS or Windows CE that allow the user to load other applications without any hindrance at all. None of these appear to be in conflict with 47 CFR Part 2. So, this appears to me to fall under fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), rather than really being applicable. Whether specific control and access to the telephony components of the iPhone are via an OS X driver on the one hand, or via a PalmOS or Windows CE driver would appear to have no specific bearing. Likewise, it is not clear, by any means that the iPhone, or other smart phones fall under that rule.
I'm not trying to suggest that you're bringing up the possibility deliberately as fodder for FUD, just that it has some of the hallmarks: a general concern that sounds potentially problematic, whether it actually is or not, and not much in the way of detail other than that. I think it's legitimate to wonder whether or not 47 CFR Part 2 applies. But, I doubt that it really does. If it did, then I think there'd have been a significant brouhaha a long time since over one or another of the other smart phones that have already been out in the marketplace for a much longer time.
Note point two, from the Summary of the Memorandum and Order (my bold emphasis):
2. In the Cognitive Radio Report and Order, the Commission modified the rules to require that radios in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer be certified as software defined radios. To minimize the filing burden on manufacturers, this requirement was narrowly tailored to affect only those radios where the software can be modified by a party other than the manufacturer because such radios pose a higher risk of interference to authorized radio services. The definition of software defined radio (SDR) is intentionally broad, while the category of equipment that is required to be certified as SDRs is intentionally narrow. The Commission agrees with Cisco that a reading of the definition of SDR in the rules by itself may give the incorrect impression that more devices must be certified as SDRs than the rules intended to require. The Commission finds that the appropriate solution to Cisco's concern is to add an additional sentence following the definition of SDR to indicate the class of radios that must be certified as SDRs. It therefore clarifies the rules by adding the following statement to the definition of SDR: ``In accordance with Sec. 2.944 of this part, only radios in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer and would affect the listed operating parameters or circumstances under which the radio transmits must be certified as software defined radios.'' This action clarifies the intent of the rules adopted in the Cognitive Radio Report and Order.
Section 2.1 Terms and Definitions, subsection (c), defines 'software defined radio' as:
* * * * * (c) * * * Software defined radio. A radio that includes a transmitter in which the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted), or the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules, can be altered by making a change in software without making any changes to hardware components that affect the radio frequency emissions. In accordance with Sec. 2.944 of this part, only radios in which