Slashdot Mirror
Apple Outs Anti-Jailbreak Update
Stoobalou writes "Apple has issued an emergency update for devices running the iOS 4 mobile operating system. iOS 4.0.2 plugs the security hole exploited by the iPhone Dev Team to allow pain-free jailbreaking of the iPhone 4 and its manifold siblings as well as... actually, that's about it."
If jailbreakme can use that exploit then so can someone malicious. Imagine having your phone bricked because you viewed the wrong PDF on some website. The update is a very good thing.
I appreciate jailbreaking, but security is more important. What about older devices? Maybe McAfee or Symantec will have a solution.
Exactly- phrased differently- "A vulnerability actively being exploited in the wild was patched".
Granted, some of those actively exploiting it were the owners of the devices... but hey. You seriously don't know if it was being exploited by others for financial gain. If they were that good, you'd never know. I'm all for patching the vuln.
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway" -Andrew Tanenbaum
This is a massively publicized remote exploit. That is the most critical sort of security issue for an operating system. There is nothing strange about them prioritizing it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Indeed. And similarly, it was wrong that the original news of the exploit was publicised as a good thing (or, at worst, neutral), rather than being publicised as a major security hole (like you know they would have had it have been something like Internet Explorer).
Of course, it is a problem that you need to jailbreak an Iphone to enable basic functionality. But if the media has such a problem with that, maybe they could actually focus on that instead of praising Apple all the time, or conflating the issue with security exploits; or maybe give some coverage to the more popular platforms (Symbian, RIM, Android) that don't need to be jailbroken, instead of the overwhelming coverage of Apple all the time.
I wouldn't be jailbreaking my iPhone if there was a way to remove SIM lock. Right now Apple & AT&T has forced me into a situation where AT&T won't provide unlock code (asks to go some unlock shop and pay for the unlock) and Apple doesn't really care. Only option is to jailbreak to get blacksn0w running.
If Steve/government (in many countries in Europe it is mandated that after contract period unlock key is given) would force AT&T to provide unlock codes for everyone out of contract then most of the jailbreaking business would go away.
It's amazing that slashdot can spin this as anything other than a good thing. Bottom line – the phone had a serious security vulnerability that allowed people to brick/use the phone for various nefarious tasks. Apple fixed it, spinning this as anything other than an important bug fix is downright irresponsible.
I can think of a few reasons:
There are probably many other reasons. Personally I do not have any kind of smartphone - they are all too big for me. But I do have an iPod touch, and the software is very slick - though strangely it is not a great MP3 player :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
In modern parlance, "bricked" means "mildly inconvenienced for about 30 minutes" rather than "made completely inoperable to the point where the hardware is now about as useful as a standard brick" and "zero day" means "sometime within the next 5 years after the actual software was released in the first place."
It isn't just anti-jailbreak, it's patching a pretty serious security flaw.
Shame you posted this anonymously, it's currently sitting at 0, Insightful. Can we stop this iPhone doublethink when it comes to security holes? This is a remote root hole. Someone can gain root on an iPhone just by making the owner visit a malicious web page. Fixing this hole is not a conspiracy to stop people jailbreaking their phones, it's a fix for a serious hole. Criticise Apple all you like for shipping the hole in the first place or for the time taken to provide the fix, but don't criticise them for addressing a serious vulnerability.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
We paid for the phone, we should be able to use it how we see fit.
Actually, no, you didn't pay for the phone, at least not all of it. You paid $200, and AT&T paid more to Apple as a subsidy.
It's still a sale and not a lease. They fact that the sale price is subsidized via the sale of another product (2 year service contract) does not make it any less of a sale. If you buy a burrito and a bag of chips, the drink is only 25 cents. If you apply for a Macy's credit card, you get additional 40% off your purchase.
I'm sure I'm in the /. minority on this, but I really don't see the big deal about getting an unlocked phone in the US. They're not currently available from Apple, but if they were they'd cost about $600, based on what they sell for in Canada, and you're not entitled to have the iPhone you paid $200 for (subsidized) unlocked, so some questions:
You are confusing subsidized vs unlocked. They are 2 different things. I thought you could already get it unsubsidized, but not unlocked (at least in the U.S.).
Why would I want any "smartphone" without a data plan? What's the point? If that was my goal I'd go back to an iPod and a cheap Nokia
I don't know why you would want it, but that's not the point. One could still use it as a Wifi device with VoIP capabilities, etc. You may want to use it on T-Mobile, or get a plan from Canada, or sell it / give it to someone else from another country.
The only other carrier in the US is T-Mobile, but apparently they use some different frequencies and not everything works right, so I need AT&T anyway.
No you don't - 3G frequencies are different. Voice and 2G are the same.
Since I need a dataplan ($15 or $25 a month from AT&T), why would I pay $400 more for the unlocked phone, which amortized over 24 months is $16.67 a month?
Again, you are confusing subsidized vs unlocked.
The sense of entitlement by a lot of people is becoming increasingly disturbing. You want the iPhone 4 unlocked, but you don't (I assume) want to pay the full price for it, and you want the government to step in and tell AT&T / Apple to unlock a subsidized phone. Whatever. You are not entitled to an unlocked iPhone for $200.
Besides the "entitlement" argument, I agree with your point there - I am not convinced the government should step in.