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"

Comments

Makes me wonder

[Dunbal]

I wonder if Apple are going to keep playing "cat and mouse", and try to bring legal action to bear against these "vile hackers", or if they're going to take the hint that you can't stop us all? Clearly there's a demand for unlocked iPhones.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Aladrin]

What 'hint'? They are under legal obligation to maintain their firmware so that the phones can't be used on other networks for another 5 years. They are also under obligation to their customers to provide firmware for their phone that is as bug-free as possible. If the user can hack it, a malicious attacker can, too.

So are you saying that they shouldn't patch the vulnerabilities, that they shouldn't release new firmware at all, or that they should break their contract with AT&T which could make every iPhone out there useless overnight unless it is hacked?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Threni]

> They are under legal obligation to maintain their firmware so that the phones can't be used on other networks for another 5 years.

In some countries the exact opposite is true!

Re:Makes me wonder

[Reality Master 101]

But they're not under any obligation to prevent third party applications. That's just greed. They want to eventually sell only licensed third party apps.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Rob T Firefly]

What 'hint'? They are under legal obligation to maintain their firmware so that the phones can't be used on other networks for another 5 years. I could sign a specially-worded contract putting me under legal obligation to learn how to breathe margarine and turn the moon into a Buick, but it doesn't mean I'll be able to in practice.

Re:Makes me wonder

[oliverthered]

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.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Aladrin]

I don't know what their contract says with AT&T, but that might very well be on there. Something to the tune of 'only tested and approved applications'.

But even assuming it's not a contractual obligation, Apple announced they weren't going to allow third-party apps weeks before the first iPhone was sold. It wasn't a surprise and anyone who bought it with the intent of hacking it and putting their own apps on it did so at their own risk.

I've bought devices, used 'hacks' on them, and did other things with them. But I did so with each of them with the complete understanding of how much money I could lose if anything happened that I couldn't control. In fact, while I was soldering one, my father was in the other room saying comforting things like 'That's a $300 mistake.' Turns out, he was almost right on that one... I barely managed to fix it.

Anyone complaining about Apple updating their firmware has rocks in their head. It's what they do, it's what they said they'll do, and nobody ought to be surprised that they'll do it.

If you want an open phone, there are several on the market or very close to market that will work MUCH better and the companies will support you in creating the apps. There's no need to hack the iPhone and Apple has cheated no one.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MightyYar]

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.

Re:Makes me wonder

[CaptainZapp]

So are you saying that they shouldn't patch the vulnerabilities, that they shouldn't release new firmware at all, or that they should break their contract with AT&T

So you know the terms of the contract between AT&T and Apple?

Oh, please, good sir: enlighten us ignorant masses.

Re:Makes me wonder

[AusIV]

I wonder if Apple are going to keep playing "cat and mouse", and try to bring legal action to bear against these "vile hackers",

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.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Atzanteol]

But you *would* be under legal obligation to *try*.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MightyYar]

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.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Red Flayer]

They are under legal obligation to maintain their firmware so that the phones can't be used on other networks for another 5 years.

Not quite -- they are under contractual obligation, which is something quite different.

Would AT&T have legal recourse if Apple didn't fulfill its obligation? Yes.

Would Apple face prosecution for violating the law if it didn't fulfill the obligation? No.

And as a matter of fact, legal obligations supercede contractual obligations. For example, in some countries, it is debated whether Apple is legally allowed to exclude other service providers.

or that they should break their contract with AT&T which could make every iPhone out there useless overnight unless it is hacked?

Oh, right... like AT&T would actually stop providing hugely profitable service to iPhones. They'd continue to provide service to iPhone owners, they'd just also sue Apple.

Re:Makes me wonder

[morgan_greywolf]

I don't know what their contract says with AT&T, but that might very well be on there. Something to the tune of 'only tested and approved applications'. Such a statement seems to be in conflict with AT&T's own behavior. So, no I doubt that very much.

If you want an open phone, there are several on the market or very close to market that will work MUCH better and the companies will support you in creating the apps. There's no need to hack the iPhone and Apple has cheated no one. I agree with that sentiment completely. If you don't like it, go elsewhere...Palm, Nokia, and other companies are making smart phones that encourage third-party development. If that's what you want, support them with your dollars instead of Apple. If Apple gets the message that people want third-party apps, they might change their product strategy to support that.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Richard_at_work]

I currently have an O2 contract phone (W810i - very pleased with both phone and network) and my contract is coming up for renewal at about the same time as the iPhone will be released. As you can guess, my decision is now slightly more complicated:

• iPhone for £269.00 and 18 month contract for £35 a month:
  • 200 minutes and 200 texts a month
  • Unlimited (within reason) data
  • Free wifi access at the Cloud access points
• N95 for free and 18 month contract for £30 a month:
  • 400 minutes and 200 texts a month
  • Better featured phone
  • 200MB data a month for extra £7.50 a month or unlimited data for an extra £30 a month

The iPhone deal comes to £899 total and the N95 deal comes to £675.

Quite frankly, the *only* reason the iPhone is even still in the running is because of the inclusive data and wifi at the moment - and even then I am still heavily leaning toward the N95 with the 200MB data allowance.

Thoughts?

Re:Makes me wonder

[visualight]

If you want an open phone, there are several on the market or very close to market that will work MUCH better and the companies will support you in creating the apps. There's no need to hack the iPhone and Apple has cheated no one.

My opinion on this is that it is unethical and should be illegal for ANY phone on the market to be restricted to a network, or restricted in available applications based solely on who gets paid. It's bad enough that companies have framed the software market so that products you "buy" aren't yours but licensed, they want the same paradigm with hardware too. It's bullshit, and it shouldn't be tolerated just because someone else sells uncrippled hardware.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MrHanky]

The terms of the contract, according to the Mac community, is that whenever there is something annoying with the phone -- bricking, restricted access of all sorts -- it's AT&T's fault. This also goes for the ipod touch, which features the exact same restrictions.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Gilmoure]

iPhone is really pretty?

Re:Makes me wonder

[ZachPruckowski]

I've bought devices, used 'hacks' on them, and did other things with them. But I did so with each of them with the complete understanding of how much money I could lose if anything happened that I couldn't control.

Anyone complaining about Apple updating their firmware has rocks in their head. It's what they do, it's what they said they'll do, and nobody ought to be surprised that they'll do it.

All true. Expecting Apple to support hacked models with new firmware is a bit silly. The iPhone updater completely re-flashes the iPod, and then re-adds the data from iTunes. So any update will at least wipe Apps, unless Apple does special work to preserve them.

But just as importantly, there's nothing saying you "have to" update the firmware. It's voluntary. Sure, you've got to if you want the bugfixes and new features, but that's hardly mandatory. Users can continue to use the 1.0.2 firmware for as long as they want to, or until there's some sort of iPhone virus out there.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Aladrin]

"Apple's contract with AT&T does not give them the right to destroy unlocked phones"

Very true. Too bad they didn't 'destroy' the phones or you might have a point here. The phones were not 'destroyed', they were simply locked again and with a patch that fixed a vulnerability. The phones aren't 'bricked', they are simply locked again.

Apple sold that phone with 1 sole purpose in mind. That purpose did not include using third-party or any network except AT&T's. They didn't even try to hide this.

Re:Makes me wonder

[geeknado]

Apple made a conscious choice to /not/ support third party apps when they failed to provide a development API for the iPhone. Most companies are "greedy", in that they need to make money to satisfy investors, and Apple's no exception. However, I'm not sure that's their primary focus here...Apple likes to maintain a user experience monopoly with its own devices...That "Experience" factor(it just works, etcetc) is key to their whole marketing strategy. In the OS world, they can't compete without supporting 3rd party apps...Computers are expected to be extensible. Phones, however, are a completely different story, and many are, in fact, locked down.

The trap they've fallen into, of course, is that their direct competition at the price point typically /does/ allow 3rd party apps, so people are understandably resentful.

One thing that I think is particularly interesting about all of this is the tendancy for people to point a finger at AT&T about this particular issue. Based on some of the other smartphones on their network, I'd be surprised if the lack of supported 3rd party apps at this stage is /really/ attributable to them, although it's certainly the excuse that's been given out from a PR perspective. AT&T clearly supports 3rd party apps on other phones...Why not this one?

AT&T clearly has every reason in the world to care about whether or not these phones stay locked to their network, of course...That's money in their pockets. That may in fact be why these phones are actually being bricked. But the third party app thing? That's a little more complicated, imo.

Re:Makes me wonder

[camperslo]

Kinda funny how people use the word "free". It's a bundle.

Calling those phones free is like getting a "free" wedding ring. You do get the ring, but the one giving it to you expects exclusive rights to screw you...

Re:Makes me wonder

[david_thornley]

Why would they take legal action? Has anybody from Apple suggested that?

Does this sort of unlocking actually bother Apple? They may not be making money on the cellular deal, but they did get money for the iPhone. They may have had to promise to try to stop unlocking contractually, but that doesn't mean they have to be all that effective about it.

They did warn that updating a modified iPhone might hurt it, but that can be seen two ways. The /. herd mentality way is as a declaration of war, but it seems to me that an equally valid way is warning iPhone modders away from the update. Suppose you have an Ubuntu system or some other free software system that has updates. Suppose you modify and recompile your kernel. What will happen with the next automatic kernel update? Will it help? Will it fix things? I'd think your best bet would be to decline the update, just like you can with the iPhone.

I have nothing against people doing what they wish with their own iPhones (please leave mine alone for now), but I don't have much sympathy for those who unlock them and then try to use the standard update.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Inanition85]

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.

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 /. 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.

Re:Makes me wonder

[larkost]

I don't agree that this is a matter of ethics, but think that the network restrictions should be legislated away for economic reasons (break up monopolies).

And thus far there is nothing but a couple of vague rumors that Apple is going to allow anything but Apple applications on the iPhone. It is unlikely that there is any financial arrangement between Apple and Google to get the current "Google applications" on the iPhone, and thus far they are the only non-Apple apps on the iPhone (without jailbreak).

Now Apple does have a real reason to object to the way that most of the unlocked (this is talking about switching carriers) phones were unlocked. In those cases people changed the radio id on the phone to all be the same id. From my understanding this is actually illegal in the UK, and something that the FCC probably frowns on enormously. You can argue that Apple gave the unlockers no choice (despite the fact the other people have found ways to do it without doing that), but you can't argue that the unlockers come out clean on this round.

And on the subject of "bricking", these people were playing around with Firmware. The software side I am all in favor of, but firmware is something you play with at your own risk. These people took the risk, and are now paying the price. Anyone who jailbroke their phone and it is having a problem, well they I have sympathy for. And from all the reports I have seen Apple is taking care of at least those people, they are just not being public about it.

Re:Makes me wonder

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I don't know the law, but maybe for a branding/marketing point of view it would have made sense. Even if you can only sell them unlocked, being the only source other than directly from Apple that is able to sell the iPhone sounds like a lot of business to me.

Re:Makes me wonder

[tlhIngan]

(offtopic, but makes me wonder why on earth Orange signed/wanted to sign an exclusivity deal with Apple, knowing what the laws were in France)

Don't see why Apple can't sell it as an unlocked phone.

It's got double activation, so the first one would be to sign up for an Orange contract. Oh, the phone's unlocked alright, but you'll have to sign this contract to use it, so you'll pay your provider plus Orange. Sure you can probably get out of it, who knows what the contract termination fees are (probably along the lines of, "You think $200 is expensive?").

Or heck, maybe Apple will just sell it through Orange dealers, who'll probably give you plenty of warning that yes, it's unlocked, but you're still bound by the contract. (The sim lock and an external contract with a service provider are two separate things...). To cancel the contract early (i.e., standard return policy), return the phone as per EU directives and French laws - none of this AT&T style cancel the plan but keep the phone. Heck, I'm sure there are ton of other ways to ensure that even though you can use the phone with any network in the world, well, you're gonna pay Orange still.

Re:Makes me wonder

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The something "bad" was closing security holes that allowed anyone to execute code on the iPhone as root. Yeah, that's fucking EVIL. And with the new tiff issue it will be patched by the end of next week, I'm guessing. The problem isn't the 3rd party apps. Apple even said "More power to you." The problem is that the only way to install them at the moment is taking advantage of security flaws.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Rogerborg]

Apple are supposed to be the "good" guys to their fanbase

Apple regularly bitch-slap their fanbase like 2-bit whores. And still they come crawling back for more, whispering "It's not them, it's me. Apple will change, if I just love them enough," through their split, swollen lips. It's sad, is what it is.

Re:Makes me wonder

[itsdapead]

I currently have an O2 contract phone (W810i - very pleased with both phone and network)

So why do you feel compelled to get a new one?

Personally, I'd give it another year before going iPhone and see what the second-gen ones are like (esp. with respect to 3G/HSPDA which may have been a defensible decision in the US but its a bit of a joke in the UK).

As other posters have said, if you're going for a new not-iPhone then T-Mobile do much better "unlimited" data deals.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Threni]

> Your statement is only true IF Apple sold iPhones in those countries, which they don't.

Your statement is only true IF Apple didn't sell phones in the UK (to name just one country with such a law). They do.

Well

[Deag]

iphucing love the name

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

iPhorone welcome our IPhucing overlords

Keep your stuff updated..

[comm2k]

Apparently they used the same vulnerability to hack the PSP.

Re:Keep your stuff updated..

[Constantine XVI]

It's not the same hole, it just happens that TIFF is a very holey format.

Soubds like alot of work

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be easier to buy an phone/mp3 player that isn't crippled?

Re:Great

[ichigo 2.0]

Don't patch until there is a working hack for the new patch. And yes, a new hack will always surface.

Re:Dumb user's guide to hacking my iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any place/website I can just go to and find out the "current status" of what I can do with specific firmware revision? Without digging through the developer forums, or idling in IRC asking stupid questions?

Sure, you can always come to slashdot to ask stupid questions. : p

Re:Great

[Tony Hoyle]

They need to patch anyway.

Every single iphone and touch is running a vulnerable safari (using a year out of date libtiff). Once the virus writers get hold of this then there'll be all sorts of stuff going on.

Of course the hacked phones will be immune as one of the first things that will be done is fix the bug. :p

Not a long term solution

[uglydog]

according to the article since the TIFF exploit can be patched. I understand it's a "cat and mouse game", but I was wondering why there can't be a more permanent solution, like creating an image that can be restored using the iTunes Restore function.

This is great news and I'd like to know how do you get started learning how to hack the iPhone? I found stuff that explains how the jail breaking works, but not how it was discovered or what was tried, etc. Blogs, logs, etc would be cool.

Nice summer job

[ThirdPrize]

I bet Sony and Apple both have an intern whose sole job it is to churn out new FW for the PSP and iPhone/Touches. Ocasionally they will slip in a few bug fixes and patches for security holes. Other than that they will end up releasing one update a week with the hackers always a week behind.

Opportunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only person here who reads that there is a vulnerability in the way iPhone handles TIFF files who immediately thinks that this is a massive security problem that needs to be addressed immediately? Sure, a handful of people will make use of this to open up their iPhone. Good for you. However, for everyone else, this is just a hole waiting to be exploited by someone posting a malicious TIFF onto a website or in an email and luring the iPhone users to view the TIFF causing havoc.

Jail Break How-To

[Chris_Stankowitz]

Reposted from: http://www.iphonealley.com/news/iphone-v1-1-1-jailbreak-apptapp-installation-guide

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 .ipsw if it comes as a .zip
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 ./iphuc and hit return
7. Type getfile

Re:iPhuc?

[gEvil (beta)]

Who said total nerds weren't funny? It's a wonder with comedy like this more pocket protector types don't get laid.

Well, according to the name of the program, at least one does...

TIFF image exploit?

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight: if an image handling vulnerability is in IE or Firefox, it's deplorable, but if it's in an iPhone, it's the greatest thing ever?

If you cretins don't like the iPhone's contract terms, DON'T BUY ONE.

Re:TIFF image exploit?

[Durzel]

Well you're almost right.

If it's an image handling vulnerability in IE then the skies are falling and it's featured on the front page of Slashdot.

If the same vulnerability appears in Firefox then it's trivial and automatically "nothing to worry about" simply because it's OSS.

If it's a vulnerability in iPhone then Apple intended it to be there in the first place and it's the users who are mistaken in thinking it was a problem.

Re:TIFF image exploit?

[JohnWhitney]

If you cretins don't like the iPhone's contract terms, DON'T BUY ONE.
1. My iPhone did not come with a contract. I carefully looked through the box it came in, and none of the documents included came with a contract. Turning on the iPhone, it said I needed to activate it. This also is not a contract. When I then activated my phone via one of the non-iTunes tools, no contract was signed. There was no EULA and no click-through license I had to agree to. Please tell me which iPhone contract you are referring to that I agreed to.

2. It is my legal right to circumvent the DMCA in order to unlock my iPhone to work with other carriers. Why are you so adamant that I should not exercise my legal rights? I'm not hurting you or your iPhone, so why do you care? I guess those guys that reflash their Linksys wireless APs with more capable firmware are also on your list. Not to mention those bastards who put Linux on the iPaq PDA, or the iPod. After all, if we don't like what we get from the Gods of Apple, we just shouldn't buy it, right?

Re:Sounds like alot of work

[Erikderzweite]

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.

For Example: Soviet Union and South Korea

[Johnny Mozzarella]

In the Soviet Union the firmware is under legal obligation to maintain you for 5 years.

In South Korea only old people maintain their firmware.

iPhuc???

[steve_thatguy]

I didn't know Apple had a sex-toy product line.

I'd just like to point out

[SpiritGod21]

Apple's firmware division is not in charge of Gundam.

Re:I'd just like to point out

[TheBOfN]

In Soviet Russia, Gundam is in charge.

TIFF for the root

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see anything that said otherwise, but doesn't this mean that someone could get root on your iPhone just by visiting a website with a special TIFF?

Incorrect assumption

[maestro371]

The problem is that they don't completely re-flash the firmware. If you have a 1.0.2 unlocked iPhone, the 1.1.1 upgrade will break your baseband and prevent you from making calls or using wi-fi. If they completely reflashed the baseband, that would not be an issue.

Re:Profit Optimization == Stupid

[MightyYar]

You are not part of Apple's target demographic for the iPhone. We can speculate on why, but it would just be speculation. It could be that AT&T demanded the phone be locked down. It could be that Apple rushed the phone out and didn't have time to add features allowing 3rd party applications while maintaining stability. It could be that they are all just a bunch of miserable pricks who wouldn't know a good business decision if it bit them in the ass.

The important thing is that you are not their target demographic. Getting angry at Apple for this is a bit irrational. Do you hate Nickelodeon for not producing good, quality porn? I mean, you supported them by watching their crappy Canadian-produced shows back when you were a kid.

N95 or iPhone

[Jeremy_Bee]

Here is your mistake right here:

Better featured phone (the N95) If you need to use 3G there is a reason to purchase the N95.
Otherwise, if you look closely at the specs and actually compare the units in your hand, you will find the iPhone to be a much "better featured phone" than the N95.

The N95 is clunky and poorly assembled, it has less battery life, less storage, and the apps it has are hardly useable and poorly integrated.
To really decide, try browsing the web on each phone. I will bet it will not be the N95 you choose.

But they are hackers

[Swift2001]

If their hack depends on a "specially-crafted" TIFF, then that's a bug, and Apple is under an obligation to close that hole. How would you like it if a "specially-crafted TIFF" was used to steal all your personal information?

Open the SDK, Apple. Allow the legal unlocking, and make it easy for people to write apps and then sell them for them on iTunes. Stop being jerks. You make money to the extent that you're not jerks.

But hacking is hacking, and I don't want any vulnerabilities on my iPhone, even if it's just "good guys" who are using them.

Re:What about the software radio...

[_.- thimk! -._]

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

Hacking popularity

[kuzb]

This just goes to show you that the more widespread and popular something is, the more likely it's going to get hacked (whether by the owner, or an outside party) to do something for which it was not originally intended. Mac owners who feel secure because they have Macs should take note of the fact that Apple's platforms do in fact contain exploitable flaws.

So...

[IntergalacticWalrus]

What's Apple's excuse for locking up the iPod Touch...?

With the iPhone it was apparently part of the contract they signed with AT&T, but with the iPod Touch, Apple has NO fucking excuse.