Slashdot Mirror


iPhone 3.0 Update Delivers Prodigious Patch Batch

CWmike writes "Apple patched 46 security vulnerabilities in the iPhone and iPod Touch, half of them in the Safari browser and its WebKit rendering engine, as it released iPhone OS 3.0 on Wednesday. One of the patched WebKit vulnerabilities stands out because of the attention it received in March, when a German college student, Nils, walked away with a $5,000 cash prize for hacking Safari at the Pwn2Own challenge. Nils used a bug in WebKit's handling of SVGList objects to crack Safari."

150 comments

  1. Loving it so far by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Had the dev version on the phone which was great, but at one point bricked my phone.

    I've never seen a portable device add so much functionality on a regular basis.

    1. Re:Loving it so far by dotgain · · Score: 0

      If your phone was just 'bricked at one point', then you've either got some hook-ups, or 'brick' doesn't mean what you think it does.

    2. Re:Loving it so far by Amnenth · · Score: 1

      The iPhone/iTouch DFU mode is supposed to allow re-flashing the device firmware no matter what's in there. It might be 'bricked' to most people, but to those with the right software on their desktop machine it should still be possible to push a clean OS image to the device.

  2. But the real question is... by abshack · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does it support copy & paste?

    1. Re:But the real question is... by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $5000... you couldn't hire a security expert to do the same work for that little money.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:But the real question is... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yep.

      Pays to RTFA, eh?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:But the real question is... by njfuzzy · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    4. Re:But the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Fuck you. I went and RTFA just because you said that and nobody paid me anything. You lie.

    5. Re:But the real question is... by dimeglio · · Score: 2, Funny

      Real iPhone users don't need copy and paste. So the feature is irrelevant.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    6. Re:But the real question is... by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      Why is the above modded a Troll? iPhone OS2 does not support Copy & paste so this is a legitimate questions. His intent might be to flame a bit, but the question remains legitimate. Let's not just mod people down just because we don't agree or because we're fanboys of this or that brand.

    7. Re:But the real question is... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Nor could an insecurity expert do the work.

      They'd take $5000 and hold a contest to get some kid to do it.

    8. Re:But the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, actually it does now troll.

    9. Re:But the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $5000... you couldn't hire a security expert to do the same work for that little money.

      If he already had it through other work then the effort is a sunk cost already. Might as well use the contest to get your name in the press for advertising purposes (and get some nice kit).

    10. Re:But the real question is... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm a 30 year old Nude Photographer

      Really? People don't have a problem when you show up at their wedding naked?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    11. Re:But the real question is... by spud603 · · Score: 1

      Wait, the iPhone now trolls? That'll save me some time.

    12. Re:But the real question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there's an app for that.

  3. I am disappointed! by hansraj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Frankly I don't know what all the hoopla about iPhone OS 3.0 is about. I was hoping to use compass with google map after the update on my iPhone 3G, but all I got was a lousy voice-memo software.

    And before anyone points out that iPhone 3G didn't have compass built into the hardware - It is supposed to be apple! I expect nothing sort of miracles from Steve Jobs!!

    On a serious note, tethering was supposed to be there without the need to jailbreak your phone, but it is not available in US, and it is not available in Germany. Could someone tell me where it is available? Phone companies are the scum that are only slightly worse than the music industry.

    1. Re:I am disappointed! by alannon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Rogers/Fido in Canada, surprisingly, will allow tethering.

    2. Re:I am disappointed! by Nixoloco · · Score: 5, Informative


      If you have AT&T in the US, you can enable tethering and MMS without jailbreaking. It is pretty convoluted process, but it works. This isn't Apple's fault though, but AT&T's.
      http://www.krillr.com/blog/3DPQHBZ3/i-have-tethering-and-mms-on-my-iphone-and-yes-im-on-att

    3. Re:I am disappointed! by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just be careful - actually doing so and getting caught at it is a violation of your TOS.

    4. Re:I am disappointed! by jabithew · · Score: 1

      O2 in the UK allow tethering, for some crazy amount of money extra.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    5. Re:I am disappointed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty simple, I'm not sure why you think it's convoluted.

      Here's the instructions for tethering
      1) go to a link in safari on the phone
      2) turn on tethering.

      Here's MMS
      1) go to the same link
      2) pull out sim
      3) put in MMS capable phone
      4) go to attmobile.com
      5) change text plan from iphone to a regular Messaging plan
      6) put sim back in iPhone

    6. Re:I am disappointed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Correct about Rogers/Fido in canada - just watch your bandwidth usage to avoid $50k bandwidth bill.

    7. Re:I am disappointed! by someonehasmyname · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Dude, just jailbreak, already. How can you be a /. member and resist the urge to pwn your phone?

      Jailbreaking doesn't void anything. I bought a 3G 2 weeks before the 'new model' was 'leaked', and broke it within an hour. Then 2 days before my 30 day 'tryout' was over, I backed it all up, restored it to default non-jailbroken firmware, and returned it 'because it sucked'. Then I went back to the store to preorder the day the 3GS was announced.

      My 3GS will be here in a few days, and it gets broken immediately as well. You're missing out on so much good stuff.

      You could prevent the lock screen from showing private sms and call data, tethering works over usb or ad-hoc wifi, springjumps+iblank rocks. my home screen icons all jumped to pages of categories laid out how I wanted them, different keyboard layouts (iTypeFastR, BB Storm, etc), being able to install themes/ringtones, BossPrefs, Folders to hide pron! (or password lists, etc.), Docs, NES, SNES4iPhone. I was 1/2 done with Link to The Past on my iPhone when I had to take it back. :(

      --
      Common sense is not so common.
    8. Re:I am disappointed! by Henk+Poley · · Score: 2, Informative

      Go here on your iPhone: http://help.benm.at/

      It will show you how to enable tethering.

    9. Re:I am disappointed! by Xocet_00 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I found this earlier today indicating that Rogers will allow anyone with a 1GB or greater data plan to tether. I called them to confirm and I am in fact allowed to consume bandwidth right up to my 6GB cap, same as if I was consuming the bandwidth on the phone itself.

      The really surprising thing is that it's automatic. I didn't have to get them to turn anything on in my account. I simply turned it on in the Network Settings page and was able to tether my Windows 7 laptop and a friends Macbook Pro over both Bluetooth and USB without issues and, even more surprisingly, without iTunes installed (on the Win7 machine).

      Bandwidth was around 3Mbps down and 0.3Mbps up, with a minimum ping of around 150ms, tested on multiple servers using Speedtest.net. This is in the middle of Halifax, NS.

    10. Re:I am disappointed! by dimeglio · · Score: 2, Informative

      They also allow it on the BB storm.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    11. Re:I am disappointed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T-Mobile in Netherlands is tolerating it because they simply can't stop it. The standard iPhone rate includes all traffic (starting at 30 euro a month with 150 minutes+150 sms). Here is an easy way in dutch how to set up tethering. Here's the article about the tolerating, also in dutch. ;-)

    12. Re:I am disappointed! by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      And before anyone points out that iPhone 3G didn't have compass built into the hardware - It is supposed to be apple! I expect nothing sort of miracles from Steve Jobs!!

      Why not use the difference of GPS coordinates to determine the last direction walked and use that to orient your google maps/compass?

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    13. Re:I am disappointed! by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Phone companies are the scum that are only slightly worse than the music industry.

      Certain companies with certain phones may well be. My phone Just Works on tethering and other things without the need to jailbreak anything :) (I didn't even know it had a special name like "tethering" to be honest - I just thought it was something that worked as standard out of the box with any phone. There's nothing special about my phone, it's just a commonly available cheap bog-standard one.)

    14. Re:I am disappointed! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      "As if I was consuming the bandwidth on the phone itself."

      Have they gotten to the point where they have actually tricked you into thinking there's a difference?

      You ARE consuming the bandwidth on the phone itself.
      The phone happens to be relaying the data to a PC. So what? My old phone and $30 AT&T unlimited plan from over years ago does this (over USB instead of WiFi, but given the choice I'd use USB anyway).

    15. Re:I am disappointed! by sexconker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What are they going to do? Stop taking your money every month?

    16. Re:I am disappointed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean like this? http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-10265889-233.html

      enable tethering, no jailbreak required. Do NOT do what the article says, instead read the comments. Worked for me!

    17. Re:I am disappointed! by jo42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They'll use it as an excuse to take even more of your money every month. Don't want that now, do we?

    18. Re:I am disappointed! by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

      Tethering does not work for me. I get a message to contact Rogers about tethering on my iPhone when I try to enable it in the network settings.

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    19. Re:I am disappointed! by thedirektor · · Score: 1

      Because that kind of "compass simulation" is a major PITA.

      It doesn't even work that good in a car, where you travel at far higher speeds, so the system will get way better datapoints for a far better projection.
      When you are on foot it will take quite a distance until you pick up enough good datapoints so that it is meaningfull.

      And it would be most usefull if the map on your mobile is just oriented correctly, and when you turn hold your mobile the map is now correclty oriented again. Thats completely impossible using GPS.

    20. Re:I am disappointed! by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have they gotten to the point where they have actually tricked you into thinking there's a difference?

      There is a difference. Its subtle, but important. But its not a technical difference it has to do with with service levels, over selling, marketing, and pricing. But that doesn't mean its any less "real.

      Essentially, when they give you a 6GB data plan they are overselling their capacity. They know this. I know this. And now you know this. Its not a secret, its not 'teh evil'. If -everyone- used 6GB every month they'd be unable to deliver the service reliably at that price.

      Hi end users are subsidized by low end users. Low end users are happy that they have 6GB and don't have to worry about bandwidth everytime they check their email. The carrier has a good idea what the distribution of users is, and knows that it can offer 6gb for $30 bucks, overselling what they can actually deliver at that price, but secure in the knowledge that the mathematical models of their customer's usage patterns virtually gaurantee they won't have to.

      But that all assumes no tethering. Its a no brainer to sell 'unlimited data' to a blackberry user a couple product cycles back-- the thing only did email really well, and web browsing poorly. Add in tethering, and suddenly a sizeable chunk of customers on unlimited go from 'low/moderate' usage measured in the kilobytes per day to super-users in the 10s of megabytes per day. Someone that historically only checks his email on his device, getting the odd document, or mp3... well now he now downloading his operating system service pack, virus software update, while watching youtube.

      The mathematical model changes. Bottom line: if they allow tethering, consumption goes up sharply for a significant group of consumers. They need to deliver more total bandwidth. That additional capacity costs more to supply and maintain. So they need to charge more for it.

      And so we have 'no tethering' in some areas or 'tethering feature' charges in other areas. As as we move forward, the devices become more powerful, and its actually possible to use significant bandwidth on them, but even now, bandwidth usage per unit for untethered use is an order of magnitude lower than what tethered users use.

      The carriers fear they would be unable to deliver reliable service at that level at that price point with wide spread tethering. So they're beign cautious about it, and looking to tier the service so that people who need it pay for it.

      A final word out to those who despise over-selling and thing the ISP shouldn't do it. Shut the hell up. We, the /. power users, benefit from over selling the most. Its our usage that is subsidized by the low end users. Its because of overselling we can get 6GB for $30 in the first place. If they got rid of overselling the prices we'd pay would shoot sky high, and we'd all pay by the megabyte or some other metering right from the first byte. That would suck.

      That's not saying that ISPs are angelic entities looking out for us, but overselling is good business that generally benefits the consumer with lower prices and services offered in a form that we like (I want a 6GB plan more than a plan that charges me 1$ per MB. Over selling and makes efficient use of the available resource...it a case of the free market actually working.

    21. Re:I am disappointed! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Frankly I don't know what all the hoopla about iPhone OS 3.0 is about.

      With the release of 3.0, Apple has once again revolutionized the entire realm of interpersonal communications using technology and have put the rest of the computer industry on notice that things are transformed forever.

      Their accomplishment?

      Patches.

      I'm telling you, the iPhone is the Chuck Norris of high-tech fashion accessories. Everything that Apple does in regards to the iPhone is "revolutionary", "game-changing", and "transformative".

      Patches...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:I am disappointed! by venicebeach · · Score: 2, Funny

      You could be walking backwards.

    23. Re:I am disappointed! by tyrione · · Score: 0, Troll

      Not going to point out that you're just being a dick for no reason. Nope. Won't bother to do so.

    24. Re:I am disappointed! by sexconker · · Score: 0

      Uh, no.

      You use your phone to access the internet over the cellular network.

      Whether or not your phone then communicates with your PC or other devices makes no difference. At all.

    25. Re:I am disappointed! by ChronoC · · Score: 1

      http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/congressman-to/ I don't think they're hurting for money. Download caps and the price per GB we pay far exceed their costs.

    26. Re:I am disappointed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either in the Netherlands T-mobile doesn't allow tethering.

    27. Re:I am disappointed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It works on my phone here in Canada
      ~ tested on both Rogers and Fido

    28. Re:I am disappointed! by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh, no.

      Uh. Yeah.

      You use your phone to access the internet over the cellular network.

      Thank you captain obvious.

      Whether or not your phone then communicates with your PC or other devices makes no difference. At all.

      Actually read my post before you reply. There is no technical difference. But in terms of the business model to support it they are worlds apart.

      Take a salad-bar, its the same situation. A single person can't really eat that much food, so I can offer him unlimited food for a fixed price, and make money by pricing it above what the average person will consume.

      If people walk in and start expecting to 'tether' and feed their whole family off that one price, that's a game changer. I can't run an unlimited salad bar at that price anymore. The average amount consumed per "plate sold" has gone WAY up.

      Similiarly, with a data device, there's really only so much data a single handset will consume. They are still mostly used for email and small files. So you can give people lots of bandwidth for a fixed price above the average cost and make money. If people start tethering, where they suddenly are using a lot more average bandwidth than before, then the pricing is no longer valid. They need to raise the rate, or charge for tethering, or block tethering, or something in response.

    29. Re:I am disappointed! by vux984 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Download caps and the price per GB we pay far exceed their costs.

      for what its worth, cellular networks -- the topic at hand, are a completely different ballgame vs broadband. A few dozen people streaming movies can saturate a cell site that can normally support thousands of voice calls.

    30. Re:I am disappointed! by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      On a serious note, tethering was supposed to be there without the need to jailbreak your phone, but it is not available in US, and it is not available in Germany. Could someone tell me where it is available? Phone companies are the scum that are only slightly worse than the music industry.

      Works in NZ. Very nice via Bluetooth!

    31. Re:I am disappointed! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are a complete idiot.

    32. Re:I am disappointed! by mini+me · · Score: 1

      Rogers have allowed tethering up until this point. They are taking it away at the end of year though.

    33. Re:I am disappointed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MMS and tethering available here in India and working just fine.

    34. Re:I am disappointed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't find 3rd party hardware control compelling? I suppose Apple is not the first. But I believe they are the first to integrate it well enough that hardware extension to a handheld computer will be quite compelling. Time will tell if this model of business is successful for hardware makers.

      On the e-commerce front, there's more reason for more sophisticated apps now that it supports in app purchase of new digital content. It is very synergetic if you think in terms of game design and new contents. This could be more desirable for the developer than the consumer but I have not seen this model succeed before. I'm willing to bet, the scale of the AppStore can propel this type distribution of digital content beyond anything else. What this will bring about is more copycat efforts by Apple's competitors if successful. I'd say that is a good thing.

    35. Re:I am disappointed! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      No, they'll start charging you for data as though you were on a regular data tariff and not super-unlimited iPhone Special tariff, wait three months as you rack up $6000 in mobile data charges, then sue you for breach of contract.

      You're talking about an entity very good at writing contracts so they hold all of the cards. A "Enabling features not supported by AT&T can result in extra mobile data charges." clause would be very easy to support in court.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    36. Re:I am disappointed! by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      Tethering is available in the UK, but you have to pay a 'bolt-on' fee which is only a penny cheaper than their most expensive pay monthly (=no contract) USB dongle, even though the monthly contract includes 'unlimited internet'. Nice of them to support their loyal customers like that.

    37. Re:I am disappointed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I don't think that really represents the business model. Most 'unlimited' tariffs actually are limited, by so-called fair use. In the UK, the three network offers 'unlimited' internet on smartphones like the Nokia E63, but the fair use clause is actually 1Gb per month. They also are probably the most popular network for mobile broadband via USB dongles, for which 1Gb of data costs £10 per month. What's really interesting is that the fair use 'unlimited' internet on the Nokia is £5 per month.

      Now is possible that 'probably' the USB dongle will get more use, but ultimately if they've sold a Gb, they've sold a Gb, so how can they justify charging double for the dongle data? That seems to me a bit like a restaurant that has a salad cart selling you a massive bowl that you can fill only once, but then trying to charge again if you share that bowl. (Interestingly enough, in the UK, if you register a three SIM using a smartphone, you can then swap it out into a USB dongle and get half-price Internet).

    38. Re:I am disappointed! by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Bottom line: if they allow tethering, consumption goes up sharply for a significant group of consumers.

      Then just charge people for a tethering plan instead of banning tethering. DUH!

      This is soooooooo lame I can't stand it. If tethering uses more bandwidth, then I'll pay for it. I'm not trying to get something for free! I'm a business user, and it would be a business expense, so that's fine. But instead they ban it entirely - so I have to buy a separate card + a whole separate data plan with a separate bill. That makes no sense.

    39. Re:I am disappointed! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You don't find 3rd party hardware control compelling?

      Jesus...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    40. Re:I am disappointed! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      No it wouldn't.

      I can show that those features ARE supported by AT&T on other phones and to other customers, with no additional charges.

      AT&T has N O T H I N G to do with the enabling of tethering. There is no difference on AT&T's end whether or not my phone is pulling data for itself or is pulling data for a PC. This is a feature of the PHONE.

      AT&T would have to prove that they have any involvement with the feature at all. I could demonstrate in court my phone browsing the web by itself, then my phone tethering to a PC and browsing the web from there. I could show the court with a nice laymen-friendly demo that there is no difference in what happens. I get the same bandwidth, and I'm subject to the same usage caps and rates in both situations.

      Even if the judge rules in AT&T's favor, AT&T would have to PROVE that I was tethering. Good luck with that since, as I've demonstrated, there's no damn difference.

      Even if they did convince a judge I was tethering, I'd sue them again for spying on my ass.

    41. Re:I am disappointed! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      LOLWUT.

      CELLPHONE - CELLNETWORK
      PC - CELLPHONE - CELLNETWORK

      AT&T runs the cell network, they can see my phone.
      AT&T can't see my PC. All AT&T can see is that my phone is talking to the internet, as it usually does. What, are they going to spy on my traffic and see if I'm doing stuff that is usually a PC thing? That's highly illegal.

    42. Re:I am disappointed! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You are limited to the bandwidth and usage limits set in your contract.

      If AT&T can't support that, that's their fault.

      Just like broadband ISPs, they oversell and under deliver, then cry about it.

      AT&T's business model is not my concern.
      My contract says unlimited data. I will do what I want within the rules of my contract.

      If my contract specifically mentioned not being able to tether unless I paid extra, I'd do it anyone. There is no way for them to know other than sniffing my traffic or guessing based on how much I use.

      If you can think of a way for AT&T to know whether or not I'm tethering on my phone, let me know.

    43. Re:I am disappointed! by vux984 · · Score: 1

      You are limited to the bandwidth and usage limits set in your contract.

      Ah well then, you agree you aren't allowed to tether. Perhaps you should READ your contract.

      My contract says unlimited data.

      You don't get to look at once clause and ignore the rest. Read the whole contract. I'll bet it also says "no tethering". Or perhaps it simply says you aren't allowed to modify the firmware of your handset which is programmed to disable tethering. Either way, one way or another, you are outside the rules of your contract.

      I will do what I want within the rules of my contract.

      Within the rules of your contract you can't tether. I'm glad we agree.

      If you can think of a way for AT&T to know whether or not I'm tethering on my phone, let me know.

      a)

      Irrelevant. Why should it matter if they can technically detect it or not?

      If you rent a car and agree not to go off-roading in it, guess what: you you aren't supposed to go off-roading in it. If you do go off-roading in it and they can't actually detect it 'getting away with it' doesn't somehow make it ok.

      b) technically they can detect tethering lots of ways if they really want to including:
      i) - having the phone tell them when you are tethering. It is their custom firmware after all, (unless you've violated your contract and loaded non-approved firmware)

      ii) - deep packet inspection will easily reveal it if you aren't encrypting all your traffic. hmmm ... this traffic on port 80... browser is identifying itself as Mozilla/5.0/Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0... hmmm that didn't originate on the iphone.

      iii) - dns/port monitoring - hmmm ... why is there a lookup and traffic to the default Ubuntu NTP servers.

      Now i) can be dodged with custom firmware, and ii) and iii) can be averted if you VPN into another machine, but my carrier blocks VPN traffic unless you pay for the VPN feature. Sure I might be able to bypass it by hacking my firmware and tunnelling through https or some such but if so I'm WAY outside the "rules of my contract" and have no moral leg to stand on, even if I can technically 'get away with it'.

    44. Re:I am disappointed! by Kartoffel · · Score: 1

      As opposed to mildly illegal?

    45. Re:I am disappointed! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Wrong wrong wrong.

      MY contract does not have the word tethering or anything related to it.
      MY contract does not mention modifying my phone.
      MY phone comes with the option enabled by default.

      Custom firmware? Boy, you don't know shit. I'm running the official ROM image from Samsung, for AT&T. I haven't had to crack or alter anything.

      Maybe you people with locked down phones need to think about the shit you buy into.

      AT&T does not have control over my phone, actually.
      AT&T can not actually modify my phone to have it tell them when I'm tethering.

      Sniffing my data, is not actually legal, you know. Regardless, I could just tell my browser to say something else. Hell, I do it right now the other way with Opera mobile to make websites think I'm a PC, not a cell phone, so I don't get the shitty mobile site.

      DNS and port monitoring? Now you're stretching. I'd be using the same damned ports for http https ftp sftp imap smtp etc. on my phone and on my pc. Ubuntu NTP servers? Why would I even have that when I don't run Ubuntu? Regardless, what does "OH NO HE'S GOT TRAFFIC TO SERVER X!" mean? Is it proof of anything? I can generate traffic to any server from my phone, just as I can from my PC.

      So let's look:
      I'm not violating my contract in anyway.
      My phone comes with this ability by default, my data plan is unlimited, and there's no clause about tethering.

      My phone doesn't tell them shit when I'm tethering.
      They can't legally spy on my communications, and if they did, the examples you give are easily avoidable. In fact, I have Opera Mobile report itself as a full fledged PC client all the time.
      Port monitoring? DNS? NTP? You're stretching, and you're still wrong.

    46. Re:I am disappointed! by vux984 · · Score: 1

      So let's look:
      I'm not violating my contract in anyway.
      My phone comes with this ability by default, my data plan is unlimited, and there's no clause about tethering.

      Keep reading. The terms of your current rate plan form a material part of your contract/agreement with AT&T. And if the terms of your current rate plan exclude tethering, then you can't tether.

      Ubuntu NTP servers? Why would I even have that when I don't run Ubuntu?...[snip]... Port monitoring? DNS? NTP? You're stretching, and you're still wrong.

      Sub in the Apple NTP servers or the Microsoft NTP servers or the whatever. The point was and is that there are lots and lots of places your phone will never go, but which will pop up if you are tethering, as your tethered PC checks for updates, virus definitions, all sorts of stuff. Its pretty trivial to make a very educated guess as to whether a PC is tethered or not, unless all traffic is being vpn tunnelled. And even then you can discern that a big pile of data is being tunnelled, and deduce that its probably tethered.

      And really, they don't need absolute proof you are actually tethering. They just have to observe that you are using more data than they want, and decide they don't want you as a customer anymore. They don't need to "prove" you are tethering to cut you off.

      That much is in virtually every carrier contract I've ever seen. If they don't want your business. They can terminate your service pretty much at will.

    47. Re:I am disappointed! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The terms do not exclude tethering.
      The terms do not mention tethering.
      At. All.

      Yeah, I don't use NTP on my PC at all anyway dude.
      (I may have it set on my router...)

      You keep assuming things with no basis.

      If they don't want me as a customer, that's fine.

      But the point is there is no difference, they can't tell, they don't know what applications I run on my phone, and they have no legitimate reason to sell tethering service on top of an unlimited plan that is already sold as unlimited @ 3G speeds.

    48. Re:I am disappointed! by vux984 · · Score: 1

      The terms do not exclude tethering.
      The terms do not mention tethering.
      At. All.

      That great then. So what are you bitching about? Apparently you have tethering service. Why exactly do you think you might not?

      Yeah, I don't use NTP on my PC at all anyway dude. (I may have it set on my router...) You keep assuming things with no basis.

      I'm not assuming you use ntp, I'm merely showing you an example of how you might detect that tethering is going on. The fact that this specific example doesn't apply to you doesn't take away from the general form of the argument.

      If you're system is set to download virus definitions, perform operating system updates, authenticate windows media player drm, synchronize the time, check for new versions of the Java VM / Adobe Software/ torrent client/ firefox/thunderbird, or any of a hundred other 'phone home' software... including things like the google toolbar. All these perform dns lookups and connect to servers you'd practically never ever do from a handset.

    49. Re:I am disappointed! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I do not have tethering service dip shit.
      Here's what my contract (effectively) says:

      Unlimited nation-wide internet access.

      I got my fucking plan before anyone started bitching about tethering.

    50. Re:I am disappointed! by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I got my fucking plan before anyone started bitching about tethering.

      And....?

      You think you can tether, right? And you have vigorously asserted that they haven't ever said anywhere that you can't. That its not excluded in your contract, in your rate plan, or in any other agreement you have with them.

      So have they actually ever said ANYWHERE that =YOU= can't tether?

      So seriously, what are you on about?

    51. Re:I am disappointed! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You don't get to look at once clause and ignore the rest. Read the whole contract. I'll bet it also says "no tethering". Or perhaps it simply says you aren't allowed to modify the firmware of your handset which is programmed to disable tethering. Either way, one way or another, you are outside the rules of your contract.

      You assumed a lot of shit about me not being allowed contractually to tether.

      You're the one who's going on about it.
      I'm saying the contract has no bearing on tethering at all, not can AT&T tell that I am, nor is there any difference between a phone pulling data and a phone pulling data and forwarding it to a PC.
      AT&T's broken business model and deceptive advertising are not my concern. My concern is the contract I have with them.

  4. Well that's just fantastic by keeegan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But when are they going to patch these security flaws on my 2.1 ipod? Paying for an update is ridiculous, especially when it fixes critical security flaws. I sure hope apple does the right thing.

    1. Re:Well that's just fantastic by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Paying for an update is ridiculous

      If you feel that strongly about it, go torrent the firmware. Not that hard to do.

      I sure hope apple does the right thing.

      You must be new here.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:Well that's just fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You knew when you bought it that you'd have to pay for upgrades. Don't pretend that you "thought" they'd give you free updates if those updates included some security fixes. You're not that dumb and we all know it.

    3. Re:Well that's just fantastic by Hel+Toupee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a first generation iPod Touch. It says on the back of the box that software bugfixes are free for life. I'd post a link to google images, but noone's managed to get a picture of the back of the box, go figure.

      --
      PERL:
      All of the power of Voodoo with most of the understandibility!
    4. Re:Well that's just fantastic by keeegan · · Score: 1

      No, I just "thought" they wouldn't leave me hanging when there were fixes for serious security flaws.

    5. Re:Well that's just fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple a doodley always does the right thing man!

    6. Re:Well that's just fantastic by njfuzzy · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's entirely possible that an updated 2.X version will come out, later, incorporating fixes. Apple often does that with the Mac OS. (I'm not sure why you're expecting backpatches to be instantaneous.)

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    7. Re:Well that's just fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Go ahead and search Google for the following string, it contains the patches you requested: iPod2,1_3.0_7A341_Restore.ipsw

    8. Re:Well that's just fantastic by zaajats · · Score: 1

      But when are they going to patch these security flaws on my 2.1 ipod? Paying for an update is ridiculous, especially when it fixes critical security flaws. I sure hope apple does the right thing.

      Sure, paying for a security update alone is a bit strange, but really — it's only $10 and gives you so much more. Besides, it's not like your iPod has been taken over by viruses due to the bugs.

    9. Re:Well that's just fantastic by Crizp · · Score: 1

      Well, you see, there's this update available...

    10. Re:Well that's just fantastic by venicebeach · · Score: 0

      The upgrade to 3.0 is free.

    11. Re:Well that's just fantastic by zaajats · · Score: 3, Informative

      The upgrade to 3.0 is free.

      not for iPod touches.

    12. Re:Well that's just fantastic by tyrione · · Score: 2, Funny

      You must be a Maddog 20/20 kinda guy.

    13. Re:Well that's just fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      iPod1,1_3.0_7A341_Restore.ipsw for a first generation

    14. Re:Well that's just fantastic by O111000001100100 · · Score: 1

      Funny thing - I too have a first gen iTouch (Lennon Legend on the front of the box) and staring at the box as I type, I see no mention of any free software updates. It does however say "Song not included."

    15. Re:Well that's just fantastic by hitmark · · Score: 1

      or:

      1. install a different firmware, maybe one that can play more formats...

      2. get a different player that either provide firmwares for free, or allow the community to have a hand in the maintenance...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    16. Re:Well that's just fantastic by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I was looking at purchasing an iPod Touch, actually. They look like very powerful devices.

      Now I'm looking at keeping my Sanza Fuze and Nokia E51. Apple can get fucked.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    17. Re:Well that's just fantastic by zaajats · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now I'm looking at keeping my Sanza Fuze and Nokia E51. Apple can get fucked.

      Your Fuze gets feature-rich updates often?

      Point being — I find it somewhat strange that when Apple charges for an update, it's somehow worse than the competitors who don't offer any of the features, free or otherwise.

    18. Re:Well that's just fantastic by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Informative

      My Fuze is a media player, my phone is everything else. I can download apps for it from many Symbian freeware repositories and all I lose is touchscreen and motion sensing.

      It was for the convenience of one device, and because it would allow me to drop a mobile tariff for a VoIP application, which I was going to get an iPod Touch, but I disagree with paying for security updates on a fundamental level.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    19. Re:Well that's just fantastic by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I have a first generation iPod Touch as well, and I can state for a fact that the box says no such thing.

    20. Re:Well that's just fantastic by Hel+Toupee · · Score: 1

      Well I'll be.. I've got the box mine came in right here in front of me, and you're right. But I swear I saw it there, or somewhere in the manual or something. Guess not. BTW, my box has Corinne Bailey Rae on the front, and also did not include a song.

      --
      PERL:
      All of the power of Voodoo with most of the understandibility!
    21. Re:Well that's just fantastic by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      You knew when you bought it that you'd have to pay for upgrades.

      I certainly didn't know I'd be paying for updates that other people are getting for free.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    22. Re:Well that's just fantastic by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded troll? As a first gen ipod touch user, I was thinking the same thing - some sort of 2.2.2 firmware update for the bugs only in a few weeks from now.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    23. Re:Well that's just fantastic by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      E51 should be able to do the real internet telephony (standard one) natively and Skype etc. with Fring like applications. It should even have VPN built in.

      Also you should be able to update your firmware (OS) natively via 'Nokia Software Updater' from Nokia.com. It needs Windows. Or, if you are lucky your phone can update itself. It is not like old times, Nokia keeps updating things even weekly in some cases. Of course, backup to memory card first.

      Consider iPod touch a nice, mobile iTunes shell/media player and nothing else. Even iPhone, if you aren't into 'cute' and want to do real work, stay with E51 as there is no limit you can do with a Symbian business phone.

      Number 1 issue with VOIP on iPod touch would be the lack of multi tasking and free competition. There is huge and free competition on Symbian regarding such applications and they are adding features like crazy. I compared Fring S60 to the iPhone one and all I could do is feel sad for its developers as it must be the only edition they could make those app store fascists accept.

    24. Re:Well that's just fantastic by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Guy doesn't want features, he wants security fixes. Same major version. Like the ones OS X 10.4.11 (thankfully) gets.

      Those bugs fixed are real, can be demoed on regular links and web pages. They are putting their customers to both security and financial risks by no releasing a 2.x secure version.

      They are also killing the small reputation they have in business, enterprise with this attitude but it is a long story.

  5. Hacking Safari? by Itninja · · Score: 3, Informative

    Maybe I am missing something, but the article linked in the summary (about Pwn2Own's prize for hacking Safari) appears to be about someone hacking IE, not Safari.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:Hacking Safari? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Funny

      It helps to move on to page 2 of the article.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:Hacking Safari? by Em+Ellel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, you are missing the part where you should read the article

      From TFA:

      IE8 wasn't the only browser Nils hacked yesterday. After he took down IE8, he moved on to Apple Inc.'s Safari and Mozilla Corp.'s Firefox, both of which he successfully exploited with attack code he had created earlier. His total for the afternoon: $15,000 in cash from TippingPoint, and the Sony laptop

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    3. Re:Hacking Safari? by hattig · · Score: 1

      "created earlier"

      That's hardly in the spirit of the competition, in my opinion.

      Anyway, good that Apple has fixed the bugs. Bad that iPod Touch users have to pay to get the bug fixes.

    4. Re:Hacking Safari? by slyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Every hack in the competition was created early, and it was allowed within the rules to do so.

      This made all the sensationalist "MAC CRACKED IN SECONDS" news/blogspam all the more annoying, and the _real_ news all the more painful. The real news was that the Safari exploit that the one dude used to win the Macbook Air had been around since the competition the year prior, and that he chose to save his exploit for the next years competition, and it wasn't fixed before he was able to use it for the CanSecWest 12 months later.

    5. Re:Hacking Safari? by hattig · · Score: 1

      Oh dear, that's not a very good show, Apple. Then again I've thought their security update policy is quite lacking in urgency, even when they are notified of a hole.

    6. Re:Hacking Safari? by pv2b · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To give you an idea about how slow Apple are about patching security holes, and to add another data point to the description:

      I reported the security issue known as CVE-2009-1697 (which is included in this large patch release). The e-mail back from Apple confirming receiving my report of this issue is dated January 7, 2009 in my e-mail inbox. That's about half a year ago.

      Now, granted the security bug I reported is actually very difficult to exploit and do anything actually useful with. Basically, if you used XMLHttpRequests in Safari and requested a URL ending with a newline, it would end up in the final HTTP request as double newlines. I.e. the HTTP header would be terminated prematurely (before the Host: header, significantly) and thereby allow javascript to access files hosted on the default website on the same server the javascript was served from. For example, if victim.example.com is served on the same IP address as evil.example.com - javascript on evil.example.com could use this to request files on victim.example.com.

      In other words - you could do cross-site-scripting targetting another web site served on the same IP address as the web site hosting the exploit.

      Still, took them about 6 months to patch it and actually roll it out an update, it seems. Heh.

    7. Re:Hacking Safari? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      If people started to use 'Webkit version xxxx.xx' already, it would be better.

      I hate Apple apologizers too but people miss one fact, Safari is a shell for a Webkit with minor changes at Apple's side. Webkit isn't just 'Safari engine' anymore, it is a huge player both in browsers, multiple operating systems and even core renderer of offline/online apps.

      Just on major players scene, Webkit powers Qt 4.x from Trolltech, Google Chrome, Nokia S60/S40 browser (the company sells 10 M phones in weekend) and Adobe Air.

      So, Webkit bugs will be found and will be fixed, just like any popular browsing engine. Some of them will just hit Safari, some will hit other stuff.

      If you are interested with security fixes, updates, you shouldn't rely on such click happy blogs. Subscribe to this

      http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/security-announce

      get security updates and changelogs minus the drama.

  6. Update the iPhone as often as Leopard by jskoda · · Score: 1

    I wonder why the iPhone doesn't see more patches and updates. If the iPhone OS is a branch of Mac OS why isn't the phone patches as much as the desktop OS? Do Windows Mobile machines patch every Tuesday? I never updated my CrackBerry. Perhaps Apple doesn't want the iPhone to appear to need patches more often than it's competitors.

    1. Re:Update the iPhone as often as Leopard by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      If the iPhone OS is a branch of Mac OS why isn't the phone patches as much as the desktop OS?

      Probably because its a branch that is stripped down and on which less can be done, producing less opportunity for vulnerabilities.

  7. Security for $10? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    I have an iPod touch, i was wondering if it was worth it to upgrade. I also wonder if these Safari bugs will be fixed in a 2.x update. Sucks to have to pay $10 to be secure.

      Although if i don't, it's easier to pWn and run cydia on it I guess.

    1. Re:Security for $10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was a bit unsettled about this as well, I just purchased a Touch this week. Maybe this is secretly why Best Buy has their current "free gift card" deal for their iPod Touches, to offset the additional expense coming from the OS update (and Apple's "no AC adapter included" policy).

    2. Re:Security for $10? by grocer · · Score: 1

      Well, it does add copy/paste (finally), landscape keyboard in Notes & Mail, global search, and nifty controls to Podcasts (30 sec skip, 2x/.5x/1x playback, e-mail button)...plus Push for apps to run in the background. I'm satisfied with the upgrade on my 1G...but still annoyed I had to pay all 10 bucks when I don't get bluetooth headphone support (that's 2G only).

    3. Re:Security for $10? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      And the USB wall warts are insanely expensive - about $30. Granted, they don't stop you from buying it elsewhere, and they are just taking advantage of people willing to spend that on an Apple branded product, but does Steve need new turtlenecks that badly?

    4. Re:Security for $10? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an iPod touch, i was wondering if it was worth it to upgrade. I also wonder if these Safari bugs will be fixed in a 2.x update. Sucks to have to pay $10 to be secure.

      US $10, .. a McDonalds meal costs what... $5 (or more depending on which one you buy) ? I don't really spend that much time annoying myself about price tags that low nor do I spend time browsing pirate bay to avoid paying them for that matter. I do agree that it kind of sucks not to get at least security updates for iPhone OS 2.X but then I wasn't terribly bothered about spending $10.

    5. Re:Security for $10? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      $30 counts as insanely expensive these days???

  8. Kiss Pay-As-You-Go "Good-bye" by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Informative

    GoPhone subscribers warned the upgrade will be the end of the service.

    AT&T Narrows Prepaid Plan Options

    "AT&T currently offers two types of prepaid plans: GoPhone, its "pay as you go" plan, and Pick Your Plan, its "prepay once a month" plan. AT&T's statement says that GoPhone will not be available for either original iPhones or iPhone 3Gs; Pick Your Plan will only continue to work for existing subscribers using the original iPhone, as long as they have an unlimited data plan. Current Pick Your Plan users who don't have an unlimited data plan will be asked to add one. iPhone 3G users are not eligible for Pick Your Plan.

    According to Erica Sadun at TUAW, who's been investigating this issue, all pay-as-you-go users are being strongly encouraged to sign up for a postpaid plan, which includes making a new two-year commitment."

    Looks like I'll be waiting a year for the Apple/AT&T agreement to time-out. I'll not do a two year agreement again, ever.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Kiss Pay-As-You-Go "Good-bye" by soldoutactivist · · Score: 1

      I held on to a prepaid iPhone for more than a year and a half. And then I broke it. And then I was fucked over by AT&T. Now I've bought a 3GS.

      This time he'll be nice to me. He's changed. I love him so much. He's just... angry sometimes. Nobody's perfect.

      --
      The downside of being killed is the upside of being dead.
    2. Re:Kiss Pay-As-You-Go "Good-bye" by garote · · Score: 1

      "AT&T currently offers two types of prepaid plans: GoPhone, its "pay as you go" plan, and Pick Your Plan, ... "

      I swear, I misread that as "Pick Your Pain", and did not even pause...

  9. I am NOT disappointed! by Eggz+Factor · · Score: 1

    If you have a data plan of 1 gig per month or better, tethering data comes out of your regular monthly allowance - no extra charge. I must say that this was a pleasant surprise. The fine print in the agreement is that Rogers / Fido may rethink the current arrangement in the new year after assessing the actual hit to the network that tethering may or may not incur.

    Fingers crossed...

    --
    blah, blah, blah...
  10. Re:Yeah, but iTunes 8.2 by njfuzzy · · Score: 1

    Boo. Hoo.

    --
    My Photography - http://ian-x.com
    The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
  11. Re:Yeah, but iTunes 8.2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who says you *have* to use it? i use itunes elusively for iPhone updates. nothing requires you to use the software for mp3s or anything else.

  12. what update? by wardk · · Score: 1

    my iTunes isn't seeing any update from the original 3.0 upgrade yesterday.

    1. Re:what update? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I think they actually mean the 3.0 upgrade. Of course, this is slashdot and I wouldn't expect any news about actual features...just security patches.

  13. Re:Yeah, but iTunes 8.2 by ameyer17 · · Score: 1

    More like "should have been in 1.0" in some cases
    Seriously, no copy and paste in 2009?

    And it's theoretically possible Apple will release a 2.2.2 firmware for the iPod Touch with backported security fixes.

  14. Unlimited Data has actually been gone since Nov by weston · · Score: 1

    AT&T actually discontinued its unlimited prepaid data plan in general back in November. I still have it, because I'm grandfathered in, but my understanding is that there's no new ones.

    Still... half my reason for keeping it around has been in case the iPhone became more appealing to me. If they drop prepaid data for the iPhone, I think I'm done with them. I'd guess you can still make it work by unlocking, but if I'm going to have to unlock, there's nothing so compelling about their service that would keep me from using T-mobile prepaid instead.

    1. Re:Unlimited Data has actually been gone since Nov by SOTEC · · Score: 1

      I just talked to a guy at an AT&T store about the difference between the $15/m unlim data plan and the 'PDA package'.

      He swore up and down that his girlfriend uses Pandora 24/7 and has never had an overage charge. I asked him why is it then that seemingly everyone on the internet that uses their iphone for what it's purpose is (internet) has had supremely higher bills because they destroyed the 5GB cap?

      I tried every way possible to get someone to admit it, and they all insisted that there is no such thing as a cap. I told him he was full of shit. Yea, HE might not get billed more because he works for AT&T and they're good to their people.

      Don't get me wrong, AT&T has been REALLY REALLY good to me over the last 2 1/2 years. I have absolutely no issue with their Customer Support. The problem is the lying by the overlords, which trickles down into retail, which makes everyone that has a hard copy bill with overages look like a liar.

      He told me that only is the tethering capped at 5GB. The actual phone's data plan is unlimited like it says.

      Can anyone at all, confirm or deny this? Maybe an AT&T employee that knows what the fuck he's talking about, not just what AT&T tells him is 'right'?

  15. Re:Yeah, but iTunes 8.2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    is required to upgrade to 3.0. While its not a big deal for individual computers, in an office environment its not as trivial..another one of Apples (not so) subtle schemes to get you using a particular software version whether you like it or not? And the "new" features are pretty pathetic really, more like they should have been in the 2.0 version of the software.

    So... let me get this straight, your office environment somehow includes lots and lots of people with iPhones, and this is a requirement (hence why you are apparently concerned with said phones being upgraded while at work). Meaning that, if I were to go out on a limb, the office at which you work, in some way, shape, or form, most likely specializes in iPhone app programming. Aaaaaand yet it does NOT have any sort of plan in place to upgrade iTunes (an important part of iPhone maintenance, which will update itself and alert you to this fact), not to mention the fact that this office is perfectly willing to stay behind a version of iPhone firmware in what is undeniably a viciously competitive market.

    Alternatively, your office does NOT specialize in iPhone app development and you're just whining because you're too stubborn and/or paranoid and/or aimlessly idealistic to upgrade iTunes, and will most likely be bitching in a month or so anyway when some flaw is discovered in said program and it bites you hard because you heroically refused to upgrade iTunes for whatever reason seems right in your head.

    Either way, I present a quote from the game Team Fortress 2 which, if I may be so bold to suggest, sums up the opinions of everyone who read your post: "CRY SOME MORE!!!"

  16. Re:Yeah, but iTunes 8.2 by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    another one of Apples (not so) subtle schemes to get you using a particular software version whether you like it or not

    Or there's the part where the new functionality in the phone requires a new software version to control it? You know, as in, "we couldn't predict the future with iTunes 8.1 to know what it would need for the third-gen iPhone coming out next year".

  17. You were just given security for life by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I have an iPod touch, i was wondering if it was worth it to upgrade.

    Probably for some of the improvements playing media, you should check a number of the lists and see if anything appeals. Also a number of new apps are going to take advantage of 3.0 and you'll quickly find you would like to upgrade.

    I also wonder if these Safari bugs will be fixed in a 2.x update. Sucks to have to pay $10 to be secure

    But that's the beauty of a system where a large majority (80%+) upgrades to new OS. You may have security exploit that could be used, but the reality is anyone looking to write an exploit would do so against 3.0 now as there will be hardly anyone using 2.x to attack...

    A security vulnerability is a combination of the ease of performing the exploit and the desirably of doing so by an attacker. A Touch is already less likely to be exploited because it doesn't make a good zombie client (network shuts down with the screen). Then on top of that you'd have to trick a user to come to your site... in combination the odds against anyone taking advantage of this are astronomical.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  18. It's patched about as often. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If you think about it, while they don't happen at exactly the same time OS X does see about as many patches issued as the iPhone.

    One thing throwing you off is that the newer Leopard has taken longer to come out with newer iPhone OS versions (like 1.x to 2.x).

    They do, of course, share the same base OS but tend to sort of leapfrog each other a little as to versions of components used.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  19. Another Iphone Story. by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I must not be geeky enough, I'm tired of Iphone stories.

  20. update? thanks but no thanks!.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this upgrade is amazingly troublesome for user.i tried it today, and it was painful no end.

    first they make you upgrade itunes (it must be that iphoneos3 requires special super-puper method of uploading that only itunes8.2 supports).

    then they backup everything on the handset, but upon upgrade it breaks (it said something about device being lost, unexpectedly disconnected or something).
    so the device is bricked, well, being restarted it shows "itunes and usb cable". when it's connected, itunes says "oh, the device is dead you need to restore it"... yeah, no shit!

    when "restore" is pressed, it says "hey there's a new version, do you want to restore and update?". and there's no escape! there's no button "thanks but no thanks, just return me to yesterday". you either restore+update it or have it bricked. WTF?!!

    once i upgraded itunes and started update, i cannot return back! and yeah, restore didn't work, i saw "preparing for restore" for 5 minutes and then bah "unknown error #1604, have a nice day". windows' restart usually heals everything, but not in this case! their web page offers to clean usb socket, re-install windows' usb drivers, yeah, right...

    lucky me, i had co-worker with older itunes and iphoneos2.2 so i was able to return it to 2.2. i think it's enough of experience. mms and rotated keyboard... well i hope i'll get it with 3.1, by that time it maybe will update.

  21. Don't fret by Xocet_00 · · Score: 1

    Originally I was getting this message as well, which is why I called them in the first place. The techs told me that they were enabling the feature gradually (pushing some sort of update to the phone?) and that it would be available nationwide tomorrow (Friday).

  22. Apple charges 'by law' - Sarbanes-Oxley act by RudeIota · · Score: 1, Informative

    I know... this doesn't change the fact they charge for iPod firmware updates -- and Apple's reasoning is certainly open to well-deserved criticism -- but they lay the blame squarely on the Sarbanes-Oxley act.

    From what I understand, SOX is a law that intends to make public companies more accountable to share holders. Apple has interpreted SOX in such a way that it feels as though it *must* charge for updates which unleash new features that substantially increase the potential value of the device. This appears to be applicable to virtually all hardware-enabling features and reasonably 'novel' software features. 3.0 is such an update.

    Why doesn't this affect the iPhone? That's because the iPhone is a subscription-based device. As such, it continually generates profit for the company and its shareholders. The iPod Touch has no subscription, meaning that anytime Apple unleashes a new set of big features for free, they supposedly have "cheated" shareholders by not releasing a new product instead. To generate revenue, they charge for the update. The idea is this keeps them in compliance with SOX by generating extra revenue for 'shareholders'. Obviously, Apple is making a profit, but I understand SOX compliance also costs big companies millions of dollars in fees (lawyers, accountants and God knows what else)... Who knows. And remember: Minor updates are supposedly fine; major updates are supposedly not fine -- although I'm not sure who the legally viable arbiter of that decision would be, exactly.

    Like it or not... Believe it or not... It's the way Apple has dealth with this. Incidentally, it's the same reason they charged $2.99 for 802.11n support on Macbooks through Software Updater.

    --
    Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
    1. Re:Apple charges 'by law' - Sarbanes-Oxley act by mini+me · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I wonder is: How can Apple distribute the Remote application for free? It is an additional feature that was not provided with the original sale. There is no technical difference between downloading Remote through iTunes and downloading iPhone OS 3.0 through iTunes.

      I see no problem with Apple charging for the update if they want to charge for it. But the SOX reasoning doesn't seem to make sense when they clearly provide additional features for free already.

    2. Re:Apple charges 'by law' - Sarbanes-Oxley act by RudeIota · · Score: 1

      What I wonder is: How can Apple distribute the Remote application for free? It is an additional feature that was not provided with the original sale. There is no technical difference between downloading Remote through iTunes and downloading iPhone OS 3.0 through iTunes.

      In the case of not charging for Apple Remote: Arguably, Apple DID charge iPod customers for it -- $10 for the 2.0 update. The 2.0 firmware actually introduced the App Store itself, which means Remote is conceivably covered under that $10 fee.

      I think... Somewhere... somehow... someone makes the decision as to whether it's a feature 'worthy' of a new product or not. Enabling hardware features seem to be presumed as such, but occasionally software counts too (Think: App Store, which provides far more value than your average, new feature). 3.0 enabled A2P bluetooth (Enabled hardware, in a sense?) and some other highly anticipated changes. It probably could have sold *exclusively* as an iPod Touch successor and I think that would be their reasoning. Apple doesn't usually charge for the incremental updates though (eg. 2.1 etc..), right?

      While I'm trying pretty hard to reason this out, it's pretty dicey. Personally, I think Apple is being greedy and using this as an excuse. Even if charging for updates were *required* by law, I imagine they could probably just charge $0.99 and cover their legal bases.

      --
      Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
    3. Re:Apple charges 'by law' - Sarbanes-Oxley act by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know... this doesn't change the fact they charge for iPod firmware updates -- and Apple's reasoning is certainly open to well-deserved criticism -- but they lay the blame squarely on the Sarbanes-Oxley act.

      That's bullshit. I bought iTouch OS 3.0 for $10 and assure you that it's not a bigger update than any of MS's service packs, or even their own OS X point upgrades. Every OS company - including Apple - somehow manages to give away upgrades, but they're claiming the government made this one illegal? Nope. Apple wanted extra cash and they charged for it, pure and simple. If they'd said something like "we're offering it for free to our premium customers", I think there would've been a lot less anger over it.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:Apple charges 'by law' - Sarbanes-Oxley act by ksheff · · Score: 1

      What about OS X updates that enable new features? Why don't they charge for them?

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  23. Only $5000? by recharged95 · · Score: 1
    " Nils, walked away with a $5,000 cash prize for hacking Safari at the Pwn2Own challenge."

    .

    In other news, for at least 3 months, hackers exploiting Nils technique walked away with a few hundred thousand via identity theft, atm fraud, password access, etc...

  24. Re:Yeah, but iTunes 8.2 by dotgain · · Score: 1

    And it's theoretically possible Apple will release a 2.2.2 firmware for the iPod Touch with backported security fixes.

    Shit, that's reassuring.

  25. Re:Yeah, but iTunes 8.2 by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    who says you *have* to use it? i use itunes elusively for iPhone updates. nothing requires you to use the software for mp3s or anything else.

    If you're in a corporate environment and don't have Administrator access, you can't install the newest version of iTunes, which means you can't use iTunes for iPhone updates, regardless of whether you want to use it to play music.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  26. This is the wrong heading... by SOTEC · · Score: 1

    Apple: iPhone 3.0 Update Delivers Pompous Patch Batch There, all better now. Continue commenting.

  27. iPhone 3.0 don't do it by G4Cube · · Score: 1

    I have a G3 iPhone and I just upgraded to the 3.0 software. Anybody else done this and notice that about 99% of your apps do not work? You select them the phone goes to a dark screen and then back to the app desktop. Is there any way to step back from the 3.0 software?

  28. Re:Yeah, but iTunes 8.2 by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    How is your stupid corporate IT policy Apple's fault again?