Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More Trouble In Apple's App Store

Posted by kdawson on from the phish-travel-in-squools dept.

quickOnTheUptake writes in to update the story of foul play in Apple's App Store, which we talked over on Sunday. The Next Web, which broke the story, now provides evidence of rampant App Farms used for theft in the store. Here is a summary of the problems TNW has seen, which includes large-scale break-ins of the App Store accounts of users worldwide. Apple has responded to the initial reports, has disabled the account of the initially fingered rogue developer, and has called on those whose accounts were misused to change their password and credit card. Both TNW and Engadget, at least, believe the problems go far deeper than Apple is admitting.

18 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. "problems go far deeper than Apple is admitting" by bradgoodman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...oh, like the antenna issue?!

  2. But they were approved! by Kohenkatz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait, wasn't this the whole reason Apple wanted to approve apps - so they could keep the garbage out?!

    1. Re:But they were approved! by emag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the apps that compete with theirs. Otherwise, there'd never be all the fart apps and such...

      --
      "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
    2. Re:But they were approved! by Mark19960 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple did not catch him, the users did... when they lost their money and had no choice but to go to their banks to get it back.
      Perhaps they should not approve apps that have no purpose?
      Can a developer REALLY put together almost 5,000 apps?
      That is to the point of being obvious as hell that your gaming the system, yet was allowed to.

      All Apple proved here was the gardeners were inept.

    3. Re:But they were approved! by socz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Eh, the system didn't work. Last night on TV, some dude on the "tech spot" for the local news said that up to $10,000 were spent from a single account!

      The whole bit was REALLY lame. They explained it like this:

      There's a warehouse, and 1 dude in there shouting "books, books" with no one buying because they can't hear his voice from the many other. So then, somehow he rigs it (hacks) so that he goes into peoples accounts and buys his own book. Then apple is like, o`rly? Why is this lowly book #1 beating out ze twinkle series? And so they noticed and are like arrrrg! We've been piz0wn0red, right And they recall the app and remove it from the store.

      I think that, regardless of how bad they portrayed what happened, the damage is done. All the arguments the smug iPhonies have made of "well macs don't get viruses...(implying security)" "it's good that there is so much control because it makes it safer..." are now??? But, thankfully for apple, many of their fans will just turn their heads and look the other way.

      So I guess only time will tell but I'm guessing those with that white veil over their eyes won't let this problem affect them. As one windows to mac user said "I just got tired of windows... and macs just work!"

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    4. Re:But they were approved! by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So a total of 48 apps out of 200,000+ were bad 'Apples', and suddenly the entire App store is a 'dismal failure'

      Still trying to figure out who you are quoting with the dismal failure bit. Or are you setting up a strawman, ready for the heroic striking down?

      However there are countless terrible, terrible apps in the App Store. There are countless terrible, terrible apps in the Android market. The difference is that one of these claims that they curate their market (comparing themselves to a fine museum) -- their founder openly saying that user privacy is why they curate their market -- and the other makes no such notion (but instead protects privacy by forcing apps to declare rights requests that users need to allow). I'll let you guess which is which.

    5. Re:But they were approved! by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem to be confused, and should probably re-read the article. These apps are not scams, they are actually simple book apps, in and of themselves, unremarkable.

      Did I say otherwise somewhere? If so, I apologize, but I'm quite sure I'm made no insinuation that these were any sort of exploit.

      Instead they were just garbage fillers, used as a target for an exploit (the mechanism of which we have no idea of, though curiously lots of people are trotting out the Apple-can't-be-to-blamed simple passoard canards et al...which is curious because on any modern system you simply can't do dictionary attacks. Anyways...). I replied to a guy who made some argument for Apple's curation claims, and my point is simply that these "unremarkable book apps" have been widely noted as being trash (which is why it earned attention -- no one would seriously buy it). Curation indeed.

  3. Steve Jobs = Emmanuel Goldstein? by WankersRevenge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Problems or not, these apple stories are starting to feel like the slashdot version of Orwell's two minutes of hate.

    1. Re:Steve Jobs = Emmanuel Goldstein? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple gets tons of coverage when they do something good, so they will likewise get tons of coverage when they do something bad.

      You can't have your cake (pervasive marketing and mindshare) and eat it too (bad stories swept under the rug).

    2. Re:Steve Jobs = Emmanuel Goldstein? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So slashdot should stop reporting on them?

      I think slashdot has done a good job avoiding that on the main page, or else they would have more stories about the antenna issues and supposed fix.

    3. Re:Steve Jobs = Emmanuel Goldstein? by WankersRevenge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not complaining about slashdot reporting stories ... I'm saying that any Apple story - whether it be positive or negative - turns into people screaming their hatred for the company like it were a picture of Emmanuel Goldstein. In the ten years I've been visiting the site, I've seen this only happen to two companies: Microsoft and SCO.

      My point: Fuck apple ... I don't care about their rep ... it's this blind parroting that makes for a shitty discussion. If I wanted that ... I'd head over to Digg.

    4. Re:Steve Jobs = Emmanuel Goldstein? by something_wicked_thi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep, Apple is a regular Jesus Christ, martyred all over Slashdot's front page.

      Let's count the ways that Apple is just like Emmanuel Goldstein.

      Emmanuel Goldstein was a fictional creation of the oligarchy to direct the hatred of the masses away from them.

      Actually, hmm, that doesn't sound the slightest bit like Apple. Let's try again.

      Goldstein was the purported author of a book that explains the way the oligarchy controlled the masses. Hmm, that could be analagous to DRM and closed platforms, but I'm still not really seeing it, since that makes Apple Big Brother and not Goldstein, although admittedly in the book, Goldstein is a fabrication of Big Brother, so maybe in a twisted way it works.

      Finally, Goldstein supposedly had a network of people undermining the ruling party. The party spread this information to create fear in the populace. I haven't seen Apple saying Microsoft or Google is infiltrating their customers and undermining them from within.

      Nope. All I can figure is that Apple is doing a bad job with the app store and you suck at analogies. But better luck next time.

    5. Re:Steve Jobs = Emmanuel Goldstein? by yuriyg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More like O'Brien. At first glance, he's an anti-establishment agent, determined to break down the oppressive system. But once he lures you in, you'll experience psychological pressure like never before and you will be assimilated!

    6. Re:Steve Jobs = Emmanuel Goldstein? by Elbereth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're actually on to something here, and you've hit the nail on the head as to why I can't stand reading slashdot for an extended period of time.

      If I ever needed to raise up an army of brainwashed minions who think they're impervious to brainwashing, I'd use slashdot.

  4. So much for app review by Mark19960 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What happened there?
    They won't allow flash or 'widgety' apps yet allow apps that do noting but get the developer points.
    A developer with almost 5,000 apps?
    So much for that 200,000 apps in the apple store.... perhaps half are fake?

  5. Re:Would this be by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Farmville for Developers.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  6. Re:Approved apps? by billy8988 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nah...that's MS yardstick. If a rogue developer hijacks IE then it's a MS problem. If a rogue developer does something to Appstore then it is that damn rogue developer.

  7. 0.00000003% of accounts accessed is not deep by gig · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The servers weren't even hacked. 400 accounts with guessable passwords were accessed. That is why the users were asked to change their passwords, and everybody got their money back.

    How much hysteria does there have to be around Apple before it's enough?