Slashdot Mirror
Apple Can Remotely Disable iPhone Apps
mikesd81 writes "Engadget reports Apple has readied a blacklisting system which allows the company to remotely disable applications on your device. It seems the new 2.x firmware contains a URL which points to a page containing a list of 'unauthorized' apps — a move which suggests that the device makes occasional contact with Apple's servers to see if anything is amiss on your phone. Jonathan Zdziarski, the man who discovered this, explains, 'This suggests that the iPhone calls home once in a while to find out what applications it should turn off. At the moment, no apps have been blacklisted, but by all appearances, this has been added to disable applications that the user has already downloaded and paid for, if Apple so chooses to shut them down. I discovered this doing a forensic examination of an iPhone 3G. It appears to be tucked away in a configuration file deep inside CoreLocation.'" Update: 08/11 13:07 GMT by T : Reader gadgetopia writes with a small story at IT Wire, citing an interview in the Wall Street Journal, in which this remote kill-switch is "confirmed by Steve Jobs himself."
Given the unpatched Kaminsky DNS stuff on desktop OS X, or even just spoofed ips, doesn't this mean that a malicious attacker might be able to spoof the apple "ban list" and disable core functionality? How long until this can be exploited with a list of the core os x daemons thus "bricking" the phone until ?
http://daringfireball.net/2008/08/core_location_blacklist : "An informed source at Apple confirmed to me that the âoeclblâ in the URL stands for âoeCore Location Blacklistâ, and that it does just that. It is not a blacklist for disabling apps completely, but rather specifically for preventing any listed apps from accessing Core Location â" an API which, for obvious privacy reasons, is covered by very strict rules in the iPhone SDK guidelines."
Sorry guys. This is brouhaha over nothing. The blaclist in question does NOT disable apps remotely but instead disallows listed apps form accessing the CoreLocation framework. See http://daringfireball.net/2008/08/core_location_blacklist
I still don't get why it was pulled.
Let rich idiots throw their money away on tat.
Oh, come on don't you spoil our neat little flamefest based on mere guesswork and Anti-Apple bias with your boring and irrelevant facts, please.
I mean this if Slashdot, if you want news, please go to CNN.com. Ah, damned, they don't want their stories being diluted by facts either...
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
How about we stop pretending that philosophical issues are the most important things when someone buys a product? Yeah, Apple products are more closed and restrictive, but they work for me. And until I get burnt by them bad enough to consider switching, I have no problem with them. I mean, they do behave pretty well for a Corporation. No need to spread FUD at the first sight of something that may not be ideal.
Except that it doesn't. The blacklist in question does not blacklist applications on the phone. It's a registry of applications which the user denies access to the "Core Location" service - i.e, when you don't want the phone to use GPS or triangulation data for privacy reasons. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I don't want apps broadcasting my location without permission.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Probably for violating an Apple business method patent.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Couple of hours before this story got onto the /. front page, Engadget had this scoop:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/11/jobs-60-million-iphone-apps-downloaded-confirms-kill-switch/
Steve Jobs has confirmed the kill-switch, and defends it as a "responsible" way to make sure they can deal with it if a malicious app finds its way into the App Store.
Get with the times, editors!
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
More and more it feels like every iPhone belongs to Steve - people are just leasing it from him. There's just *no way* a phone should contact another server without the user knowing it or expressly permitting it, and there's absolutely no way in hell it should disable an application which the user deliberately installed, period. The end.
Shouldn't be used unless it's deemed "dangerous".
Who decides what's dangerous? Are pirated apps going to be deemed dangerous? If you bypass certain security measures, is that dangerous? I don't like control being taken away from me (where "me" in this case is any end-user).
Even if the intent is to only blacklist malware, does apple have a research lab to determine whats malicious and what isnt? Will they tell us how they decide on malware? What if you release an app that is infected with malware, the app is still legit whereas the malware part of the code is not. What happen if that app gets blacklisted, can it be revoked? If the iPhone contacts a webpage every now and then, will apple pay the bill for the connection?
I don't like this, at the moment I don't like it because they did it without saying they are doing it. Going forward, they should say what they intend to block and give the enduser and option of either using the "service" or not... especially since the end-user is the one paying the bill for the datatransfer, the amount of money is imho completely irrelevant.
It's probably in the terms and conditions of ownership, and thus every owner has given permission already.
It's not like Apple is collecting user information here. It's a HTTP GET as far as I can tell, with no information being supplied to Apple, just a list of applications that are bad and that the user shouldn't run for their own protection.
Going beyond this into the realm of assuming that apple are collecting user data, disabling applications they just don't like, etc, is stupidity on the level of people who believe in conspiracy theories.
Wow. Just... wow
Let's change the players a bit:
"Engadget reports Microsoft has readied a blacklisting system which allows the company to remotely disable applications on your Vista PC."
Do we still feel warm and protected?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Hmmm, explains a lot - though I can see a lot of infringement cases come up. Including one against patent infringement lawyers. I wonder who'll represent Apple there?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Apple really does have an incredible buisness model. Lesser companies work out what people want then try to provide that to them at the lowest cost. Apple tells it's fans what they should want and then sells it to them for a remarkably high price. I never would have thought such a system would work.
That business model is called religion.
Based on what Apple has told developers since the start of the program, revocation appears to be certificate based; Apple is revoking the developer's certificate for that program, which breaks the authentication chain and prevents the application from running. As for what they can block, it does not look like this would be effective against a jailbroken kernel, since much of the authentication chain is patched out anyhow; in other words they wouldn't be able to revoke: the jailbreak, applications for it, and perhaps even regular applications once the jailbroken kernel is installed.
As for what they'll revoke, that's the bigger question. Apple has not shown to be particularly hostile towards the jailbreak community in the past; even if they could revoke it, I don't believe they will. The real test on this policy would be the NetShare application, it's an application Apple has ceased to allow post-release and if the revocation system were to be abused it would be the prime target. So far Apple has not revoked it, even though they've had ample time to do so.
That leaves us with malware. I don't find this to be something hard to define, but perhaps other Slashdot readers do. If the application is legit but has a problem (backdoor for exploiting the Mobile account, for example) I'd assume Apple will revoke the certificate for the bad application and let the author issue an updated version as long as they didn't intentionally create a problem (which is grounds for being expelled from the AppStore program). If it's outright malware that somehow passed Apple's QC, then they'll still revoke it, will not issue further certificates to the guilty party, and since they had to sign up for the program, track the guilty party down and sue them for computer crimes in some form.
I'm not too worried about this (I consider blocking malware from running a good thing) but I can see why other people here would be worried. In either case it's a well thought-out system that seems to cover every contingency, so there shouldn't be any "friendly fire" of applications being unintentionally revoked.
which allows the company to remotely disable applications
You mean like what complete strangers currently do now on a windows pc?
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I trust Amazon with my credit card number and address. I wouldn't trust Scammy Viagra Co with either.
Of course it's within the realms of possibility that Amazon may misuse it, but the benefit I get in a wide access to cheap books outweighs my risk.
On the other hand I'd expect Scammy Viagra Co to misuse it.
It's perfectly reasonable to accord different companies with different levels of trust. And giving out your credit card number is a far more significant trust level than allowing a company to prevent selected apps from accessing your current location.
I do trust Apple to use it responsibly. I wouldn't trust Microsoft to. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. All companies are not the same. Microsoft's evil misdeeds negatively affect their trustworthiness, but they don't affect all other companies too.
... that as soon as someone dares to post something other than the usual expressions of paranoia and criticism, other less free-minded individuals accuse him of sheep mentality, or drinking the kool aid? Someone else has to see the irony in that!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Security is layered.
Applications have permission to run by virtue of the fact that they are signed by Apple. That certificate can be revoked. (The so called kill switch).
This black list deals with apps that make inappropriate use of Core Location, but are otherwise OK. For example an app might constantly use explicit Core Location requests to find the current location. That would drain the battery in no time. (versus requesting to be notified when location has changed by more than a threshhold). The App is non-malicious, just sloppily programmed. Apple could blacklist it's core location functionality, whilst leaving the rest of the functionality working. Until such time as the developer produces a fixed version.
"Oh, but's Apple, and this is good! Want to know why the PC prospered? Apple around the time of when it could have gone its way introduced an SDK development process where every developer who wanted to deliver something had to have a developer token. Without the blessing of Apple no go on Apple hardware! It annoyed many developers and the rest is history...
Don't believe? Do some historical checks..."
Really, I was an Apple developer back in the day, moving from the Apple II all the way to the original Mac (the all in one) and then getting out of the business a few years later.
I don't remember EVER contacting Apple for the SDK. I simply bought Lightspeed /Think C and Pascal and developed. Want more in-depth info? Get the Inside Macintosh books. I had like 2 dozen...each taking up a few hundred pages, and each focusing on an API and/or group of related items. Things like Audio had entire volumes written about it (this was my focus).
In this time, I *NEVER* once asked Apple for a 'token'...it wasn't needed. The most you'd ever need would be to have an official App ID (or whatever it was called) that ensured that documents created with specific doc types would know what application would open it -- and to keep other developers from trying to usurp yours. It could easily be done on the local computer.
Honestly, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. This falls into the realm of not just ignorance, but making shit up.
If I try to sell a shiny piece of rock for a stupidly high price and even put up a big sign saying "THIS DOES NOTHING USEFUL, ALL IT DOES IS SHOW YOU CAN AFFORD IT!"
...a nice, subtle reference to the diamond industry.
Nice.
malicious app kill switch
"For your security."
"For your own good."
"For the children."
I've got a message for Apple, quite simple - I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I want on my iPhone, or any other computing device I own.
If you can't understand that, and continue down this road, then the chances of my buying an iPhone (of any generation) are most definitely going to diminish to nothingness.
I already kicked Verizon to the curb for locking down the phone and trying to force me into their own ridiculous $/month ringtone service when I have perfectly good midi, wav, and mp3 files to make ringtones of myself. Don't think I won't go to a provider that has the sense to let me work with things MY way.