Slashdot Mirror


Hackers Find Remote iPhone Crack

Al writes "Two researchers have found a way to run unauthorized code on an iPhone remotely. This is different than 'jailbreaking,' which requires physical access to the device. Normally applications have to be signed cryptographically by Apple in order to run. But Charles Miller of Independent Security Evaluators and Vincenzo Iozzo from the University of Milan found more than one instance in which Apple failed to prevent unauthorized data from executing. This means that a program can be loaded into memory as a non-executable block of data, after which the attacker can essentially flip a programmatic switch and make the data executable. The trick is significant, say Miller and Iozzo, because it provides a way to do something on a device after making use of a remote exploit. Details will be presented next month at the Black Hat Conference in Las Vegas." The attack was developed on version 2.0 of the iPhone software, and the researchers don't know if it will work when 3.0 is released.

15 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. frost pist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple are brown hatters, not black.

  2. Is this good news. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does that mean if we go to the "wrong" web site we can enable Wi-Fi tethering without have to pay extra?

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Is this good news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only if you want to risk losing your service. Tethering without a tethering plan is a violation of AT&T's terms of use. It seems to me that it would be pretty easy to detect. For instance, they could check your browser agent information when you make HTTP requests. They could also look for connections over known ports that would imply you're not on a phone (such as a WoW connection). It seems there are several ways AT&T could spot that you're using a tethered connection without paying for it. So even if you can enable it, it would probably be best not to unless you're interested in potentially losing your phone service.

    2. Re:Is this good news. by Dare+nMc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      imply you're not on a phone

      exactly, imply. If your allowed to install apps on your phone, everything you point out is possibly a new app that AT&T doesn't know about, and would be a pain if AT&T's permission were required to install/run each new type of app. Granted, for the I-Phone crowd, requiring permission to install/use a app isn't uncharted territory. but for the rest of the smart phones, this wouldn't be very nice.

  3. Misleading Title/Summary by forand · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The title and summary are very misleading. The exploit is to run unauthorized code. They have not presented an injection path. While this is not good it is not as bad as having a "Remote iPhone Crack."

  4. Phone Viruses by Logical+Zebra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To this date, I cannot think of any cell phone viruses that have existed and spread. I would assume that is because pretty much every cell phone is different, and writing a virus for one specific phone would be a waste of time, since it would represent only a fraction of a percent of the user base. (Usually, when you write a virus, you want it to spread as far and wide as possible, right?) However, with the popularity of the iPhone, I could see a malicious person writing a virus that would infect all of the Apple phones out there, since there are a lot of iPhones on the networks.

    Could this crack be used for that? If so, are we going to see an antivirus program on the next iteration of the iPhone?

    --
    I have a bad feeling about this...
    1. Re:Phone Viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Might this be the dawn of the first "apple virus" that all Mac users claim will never happen? :-)

    2. Re:Phone Viruses by think_nix · · Score: 4, Funny

      To this date, I cannot think of any cell phone viruses that have existed and spread.

      Windows Mobile ?

    3. Re:Phone Viruses by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Informative

      What "lot" of iPhones are you talking about? Here in Germany, the iPhone is one of the rarest phones on the market. Because it's double the price of the best Nokia, and has only half the features. And I bet this will be the case for most of the world.

      If you want to get a virus going, make it run on Symbian. Or with some luck, you can use J2ME, which pretty much every phone supports, but which is a bit hard to get to do something useful (because of the additional VM/Sandbox).

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:Phone Viruses by MrCrassic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I know that you were aiming for a "Funny" moderation, but now that I'm back on Windows Mobile after having tried phones from RIM and Apple, I'm finding that it's actually very, very versatile.

      While Windows Mobile is infamous for little bugs and freezes, it actually makes for a very complete mobile platform. Users can edit their Office documents on it, browse the web with it (even easier in WM6.1), play all sorts of media, and find lots of other uses for it. Furthermore, while iPhone OS is becoming just as versatile, it is nowhere near as customizable right off the bat, and application development is much more stringent.

      Though I won't lie that it's nowhere as pretty and suave as using the iPhone, nor will it ever be (at least not in the immediate future).

    5. Re:Phone Viruses by Krneki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't this the same for the whole Windows Vs Mac flame war? Design vs functionality, where security is the last concern.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    6. Re:Phone Viruses by peppepz · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you want to get a virus going, make it run on Symbian.

      On ancient Symbian versions, perhaps. After S60v3 they added that darn platform security that won’t even let you execute your own code, let alone third-party viruses.
      Pirates periodically find cracks, but they tend to be model- and firmware version- specific.

  5. Re:Dumbing down the text... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My experience with dealing with geeks seem to show me that the distribution of intelligence is about on par with the rest of the population, in its normal distribution. We like to see our selfs better then everyone else but that really isn't the case.

    I have found that people who are on the manufacturing floor of a factory are just as likely to pick up an abstract explanation as a geek would. Sure geeks have memorized some terms and vocabulary however for the most part their ability to understand is about the same as everyone else.
    Conversely there are a lot of people who know things that it is difficult for me to comprehend who are not geeks about the same amount who are geeks.

    You analogy is off. Because geeks are a sub-culture Nobel Prise Winners are people who won an award for their excellence.
    What does it take to be a geek. Watch a lot of Star Trek, or Sci-Fi, Read Comic Books, Write code (I was able to do then when I was 6 years old) none of this requires a high intelligence, to preform at some level.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. An app that smashes its own stack by AntiRush · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I haven't done the legwork but it appears that an attack vector exists via the App Store. Applications allow downloading of data files (podcasts, for example).

    Simply get your application published and give people some incentive to download it (for free). Once your intended target or target quota has installed download a "media file" that's actually the malicious binary. Then it's just a matter of smashing your own application's stack to run the code.