Slashdot Mirror


Apple Yanks Privacy App From the App Store

wiredmikey writes "Back in May of this year, Internet security firm Bitdefender launched 'Clueful,' an iOS App that helps identify potentially intrusive applications and show users what they do behind their back, and giving users an inside look at all the information app developers can gather about a user. Seems legit, right? Apple doesn't think so. Or at least they have an issue with something behind the App that sparked them to pull it from the App Store. After initially reviewing and approving the App that was released on May 22, Apple has had a change of heart and has just removed the App from the AppStore. It's unclear [why it was yanked], and Bitdefender told SecurityWeek that the company is under NDA as far as explanations for the removal. Interestingly, Bitdefender did share some data that they gathered based on Clueful's analysis of more than 65,000 iOS apps so far, including the fact that 41.4 percent of apps were shown to track a user's location unbeknownst to them."

136 comments

  1. Apple is beside itself on this one. by sethstorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like Apple wants to be on both sides of their 1984 commercial. Not only do they want to be on the side that "is different" while being on the side that hates freedom and privacy.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by zeroryoko1974 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They want to be on the side that makes them billions of dollars a year

    2. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      doy

      sell someone an image to buy into and they become your slave

      Apple has been selling an image for a long time, hence all the "Religion of Steve" jokes

    3. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed... which if the average Joe valued his or her own privacy and freedom to control their own device, wouldn't be the side that makes billions of dollars a year. But unfortunately, Joe doesn't give a shit, so it is.

    4. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

      >>>makes them billions of dollars

      Doesn't Apple give-away lots of free apps? (Like how B&N and amazon give-away lots of free kindlebooks.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    5. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the side that doesn't make billions of dollars of year is who exactly?

    6. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the side that doesn't make billions of dollars of year is who exactly?

      Well, at one point in the past there was Maemo whose apps generally didn't spy on you, and you had root access out of the box, and it was ahead of iOS on everything from cut and paste to multitasking.

      But nobody bought it (*), so it didn't make those billions of dollars, so it went bust, while Android and iOS came along, sold out their users data to anyone who'd pay, locked down the devices, and made billions.

      So there you go. The market spoke and it didn't want privacy or the ability to control the devices without JBing them.

      (*) For an approximate value of "nobody"

    7. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably not what the linux zealots think. Apple prohibits "doing stuff to other apps" pretty much.

      Although the information discovered is ultimately more useful to Apple itself than it is to the end user. What would be a more likely scenario is that Apple may update the iOS and the SDK's to prevent the very kind of security breeches that these apps permit. Particularly the "unencrypted over wifi" aspect and "can read your contacts"

      If an app can read your contacts without permission, that means it's a bad app. If it's sending data unencrypted, then it's just a poorly programed app. It's not like you can't make a bad app with Flash CS5 or Corona compiled to iOS.

    8. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope Maemo was another bad attempt by the FOSS community to throw user unfriendly, only-geeks-apply software at the masses, and the masses never heard of it. Nokia seems to have this problem of producing cool hardware, and then screwing up at the software level.

      Go read the wikipedia entry to see how unusable it is out of the box. The description reads like a nerd drooling.

    9. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by HarrySquatter · · Score: 1

      Well, at one point in the past there was Maemo whose apps generally didn't spy on you, and you had root access out of the box, and it was ahead of iOS on everything from cut and paste to multitasking.

      "Maemo" is not a company and it was produced by Nokia which is, you guessed it, a company that makes billions of dollars a year.

    10. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a company that makes billions of dollars a year." ...but not from Maemo. That is now dead, so the parent post's point stands. And Nokia is in a death spiral now anyway, losing money and laying off tens of thousands, so it hardly makes the point you're trying to make.

    11. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck does this response have to do with what the GP post? It's entirely possible to make billions of dollars *and* give away free apps.

    12. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You will only install the apps that God-Emperor Jobs and his prophet Cook have decreed are holy, and you will fucking like it!"

    13. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by tapspace · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed... which if the average Joe valued his or her own privacy and freedom to control their own device, wouldn't be the side that makes billions of dollars a year. But unfortunately, Joe doesn't give a shit, so it is.

      I seriously hope you're not referring to android here. Yeah, I want my phone to a direct feed into the servers of the world's largest targeted marketing multinational. I have an iPhone specifically because it lacks Google integration. If the average Joe valued his or her privacy as much as this, he or she wouldn't own a smartphone at all.

    14. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new permissions in iOS5 and iOS 6; location services, photo library, contacts, are giving freedom and privacy to users.

    15. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by anomaly256 · · Score: 0

      *loses* billions of dollars a year. There, fixed that for you.

    16. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by eWarz · · Score: 1

      because you know, apple is waaay less profitable than google and doesn't use your information for nefarious means. Nevermind the fact that they are the most profitable company in the USA....

    17. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could, of course, use Android without the Google integration (quite possible) or simply Something Else Entirely, like Meego, Symbian, Bada, WebOS, Blackberry or whatever. Choosing the iPhone for your privacy is just plain moronic.

    18. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      God-Emperor Jobs

      I just got an image of Jobs on a Golden Throne, being kept in a state of undeath by the sacrifice of 10,000 fanbios every day.

      Damn you Games Workshop! :)

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    19. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is some reason to believe that Nokia may still recover.

    20. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by Deorus · · Score: 2

      because you know, apple is waaay less profitable than google and doesn't use your information for nefarious means. Nevermind the fact that they are the most profitable company in the USA....

      I'd be surprised if they used my information for "nefarious means", not only because they actually show me everything that's sent back to them, but also because that's not their business model.

    21. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by tapspace · · Score: 2

      You could, of course, use Android without the Google integration (quite possible) or simply Something Else Entirely, like Meego, Symbian, Bada, WebOS, Blackberry or whatever. Choosing the iPhone for your privacy is just plain moronic.

      Modded up without citation because you take the anti-Apple position. Look, smart phones are tracking you. Period. To pretend that somehow the iPhone is terrible and all those others aren't is just naive. Locking down the iPhone is at least as easy as locking down an Android phone. I would guess easier. Jailbreaking is not a difficult process, and from there, you can install nice things like Firewall iP. I would guess that this is FAR easier than getting a nicely working Android image without all google integration stripped.

      I understand the Apple model is anathema around here, but don't let it cloud your judgement. The belief that somehow my iPhone is offering me less privacy than anyone's Android phone is plain stupid. I have already said that if you don't want to be tracked (with current technology and laws), you pretty much have to forgo a smartphone.

      Here's a representative comment of the type we get around here about smartphones: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2537718&cid=38133148 The android defenders/iphone haters laugh and laugh at the iphone and always push android (even where privacy is concerned). Finally, when backed against a wall about privacy and android, they turn it around and act like it's no biggie that google is building a massive dossier on them. At least I am honest with myself about the privacy invasion that my smartphone represents. And I'm doing things about it, but there seem to be few perfect solutions at the moment. All I see the android army doing is shrugging and going "so what if Google is archiving my every move." Well, in all likelyhood, Apple is archiving a lot less of my activity than google is, and for the moment, that's more privacy than an Android phone gives me.

      Unless something has changed or I've missed something, last I looked removing google from android required removing and degrading a lot of functionality (and just replacing google with something else anyway). I can already replace google with something else without degrading functionality by using an iPhone.

    22. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Hm, I guess you are a moron, and an Apple fanboi to boot, getting all defensive about Android, since it was one of six examples. Honest with yourself? No.

    23. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be surprised if they used my information for "nefarious means", [...] because that's not their business model.

      Really? iAd makes a ton of money for Apple.

    24. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by dwightk · · Score: 1

      " ...you pretty much have to forgo a smartphone."

      should be

      "...you have to forgo a cellphone."

      --
      Like anyone can even know that
    25. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by tapspace · · Score: 1

      Take it easy. Everyone hates a sore loser.

    26. Re:Apple is beside itself on this one. by zeroryoko1974 · · Score: 0

      Anything Apple does for free is with the intent that they will make money from it somehow. They are no different then any other corporation. Apple sheep want to believe that Apple is all roses and lollipops, but they are no different then any other large corporation like Microsoft, or Wal Mart

  2. rotten by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Somebody doesn't like potential victims to watch back. Wonder if this is really a rotten Apple, a big teleco-ISP, or perhaps NSA.

    1. Re:rotten by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why can't it be all 3? It definitely requires a rotten Apple though as they are doing the dirty work

    2. Re:rotten by RLBrown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dirty work? Do not be so sure. The article raises the possibility that Apple did not like the Clueful app because it discloses to users that some developers are in fact evil. But then this possibility is knocked down as not being likely. So we are left with a big question as to why the Clueful app was pulled. The most likely reason is that the app fell into a technical TOS violation, something that is prohibited but in this case would have in fact been okay. Perhaps because the app sends user data back to the developer? Even if that was done for benign and beneficial use, it could still be a TOS violation. Let's not conjure up headlines. I know a lot of developers do not like the walled garden, but after the "Find and Call" incident, maybe users view the wall in a different light.

      --
      -- Perhaps I see less than some, but more than many.
    3. Re:rotten by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Oh snap! Rotten Apple, that is their new name for me.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    4. Re:rotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Feds don't play well with others, unless they are like-minded (fascistic). This especially holds true for their wonderful full spectrum national security surveillance police state that they have erected in the USA.

      IIRC, Steve Jobs was at one point "under the gun" regarding the sale of some stock or stock options. That difficulty went away. The Feds use whatever leverage they can, by whatever means necessary. I mean, it's not as if Apple makes $8 - 10 Bn software sales to the Federal government like Microsoft has done, for Apple to jump into bed with the Feds.

      Consumers need to be wary about any high-tech gear that they buy, because there are sure to be back-doors left open for Big Brother. Such has been the state of telecommunications in the USA since the late 1940's, when "No Such Agency" and "Corporate Intelligence Agency" were founded.

    5. Re:rotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you like, I can search the web for a picture of a stallion.

    6. Re:rotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did Clueful track its users? It would be ironic if the owner's information was being uploaded to a Romanian server for tracking.

    7. Re:rotten by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll bite....

      spit spit

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    8. Re:rotten by dracocat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is probably nothing more than the app had to have broken out of its sandbox. There should not have been a way for the app to monitor what other apps were doing without doing something disallowed by Apple.

      Not saying I don't want this app, or that some arrangement/exclusion shouldn't be reached by the two companies (perhaps with a code review to make sure everything they are doing outside of the sandbox is benign), but I don't think this is a big conspiracy.

      Just simply Apple continuing in its tunnel vision of not allowing apps full freedom on its phone.

      Would definitely install this app if it was brought back. Perhaps release code so we can install it ourselves?

    9. Re:rotten by MBCook · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's kind of what I was wondering, unless the app is simply a searchable catalog of the apps they have previously studied.

      I'm curious how apps get your location without your knowledge? The first time an app asks you're supposed to get the location services popup, and whenever your location is being accessed you're supposed to get the little location arrow in the status bar at the top of the phone.

      As much as I love my iPhone, I'm glad to get Apple get embarrassed by some of this stuff. The fact that many games were taking your phonebook simply because they could and sending it to the developer's servers was insane.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    10. Re:rotten by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article raises the possibility that Apple did not like the Clueful app because it discloses to users that some developers are in fact evil.

      Wouldn't that be a good way to weed out those developers? You're suggesting that Apple may prefer that people don't know which developers are the evil ones?

      The most likely reason is that the app fell into a technical TOS violation

      Why is that the most likely reason, as opposed to Apple just not liking the transparency that the app provides?

      Perhaps because the app sends user data back to the developer?

      Plenty of apps do that. Bitdefender says that 20% of apps they've studied send user data to the internet without notifying the user.

      Let's not conjure up headlines.

      What choice do we have? Apple put Bitdefender under a NDA regarding the removal, and Apple themselves won't justify why they did it unless they're basically forced to. We have no choice but to speculate.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    11. Re:rotten by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have no choice but to speculate.

      Yep, and we should always assume the worst until they come clean. It's the only way to get a response.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:rotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt the NSA has anything to do with this.

      This is more than likely developers complaining about their source of revenue drying up as people can no longer be marketed as products to the advertisers, and Apple saying okay okay we'll pull it.

      If the NSA wanted, they could just turn on your cellphone mic remotely and eavesdrop
       

    13. Re:rotten by TheRecklessWanderer · · Score: 1, Informative

      YOU must all bow down to the mighty apple and do what we say. We are the mighty overlords and our word is as law. We will use the courts to crush the small or inconvenient until we are the All and then we will rule the world. Ahem...We mean...Buy Apple, we are nice and ethical.

      --
      Mean what you say...say what you mean.
    14. Re:rotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, consumers need to do the exact opposite: Embrace the Surveillance! Whenever the government cross-references their databases, if you only leave a few tracks, some of them possibly of an illicit nature, you are going to stand out from the rest of the sheeple if you are singular, likely furtive in their view.

      Instead what you do is to get in as many databases as possible, creating as much 'noise' as possible, with a certain element of randomness. For instance, having multiple accounts, credit/checking/saving, doing odd numbers of transactions, in odd amounts, and randomizing which account is used where will not only confuse the government, but it will thoroughly confuse the marketers as well.

      I do this with everything. Profession, level of profession, phone number, you get the idea. If you are interested in who has caused what to be sent to you online or off, use these with an encoded address (still readable by delivery service of choice, of course) to get a handle on who sold you, when. It also throws noise into the databases.

      Due to my security clearance level, I am completely subject to monitoring anytime, any place, for life. And they can yank me right back if they want to with one signature. This is the only approach that actually makes sense now.

      Now go out and kick some sand into the gears of government ;-).

    15. Re:rotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NDA wasn't a typo - that's a non-disclosure agreement, nobody said the NSA disliked the app.

    16. Re:rotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. You have convinced me. 'm going to run right out and join the dark side, embrace the horror.

      That beats the heck out of growing a beard, wearing a sack-cloth & sandals, and living in a cave.
      With any luck, that $5.00 contribution I make to the Obama Committee to Re-Elect the President will turn into an all expenses-paid dinner in the White House with Barry Big Brother & family.

      Thanks, comrade.

    17. Re:rotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The app itself doesn't do anything to check on other apps, it only looks up the app name in a database. I think it doesn't even work without Internet (the DB is not in the app itself).

    18. Re:rotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you can even get the name of other apps installed without breaking out of the sandbox... but I could be wrong...

    19. Re:rotten by sirlark · · Score: 1

      +1 Agree Wholeheartedly

    20. Re:rotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      L2R Yes they did

      Somebody doesn't like potential victims to watch back. Wonder if this is really a rotten Apple, a big teleco-ISP, or perhaps NSA.

      Quoted from OP

      L2R = learn to read, as your english comprehension sucks.

    21. Re:rotten by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

      The most likely reason is that the app fell into a technical TOS violation,

      I disagree. The fact that the details behind the removal was covered by an NDA somehow seems to indicate something deeper. Many apps are rejected and a few have been removed for TOS violations. I don't recall an NDA covering them. I'm interested in how Apple was somehow able to force an NDA over something like this. Do developers have to agree to something like this before submitting an app to the app store, or did Apple "suggest" that future submissions would not get approved if they talked about this one? Curious minds want to know!

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    22. Re:rotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I happened to be one of the developers that could be considered 'evil', and I had the ability to make this information less easy to find, I would take it.

      My point is, perhaps Apple didn't like things that clueful told you about apple. That seems like a possibility.

    23. Re:rotten by camperslo · · Score: 2

      We have no choice but to speculate.

      Adding the NDA really fuels the Streisand effect behind that too. It suggests that the app does something, or comes too close to doing something, too powerful... They don't want an app out there that could sniff in-app purchase transaction data. The apps really ought to be totally fire-walled from each other, especially if whatever it monitored can be mirrored to a 3rd party remote location as well as reported to the user. It didn't say whether it just detected system calls or read actual data. I'm assuming the list of app activity entries were sent from users.
      Hmmmm. That might suggest a built-in potential to pass along everything to somewhere?? The OS should never allow that kind of access. It could be a added feature to look-alike versions of apps.

      Maybe someone working via WiFi could sniff and tell what it, and anything else there too with similar capabilities, is doing. Some things might be time shifted.

  3. Not what I signed up for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, I wish I knew about that and installed it. All this surveillance, whether government or private, is really starting to creep me out. I don't want to live in a surveillance society. I will to live in place where people can live private lives free from scrutiny simply on the basis that it's none of their god-damned business.

    1. Re:Not what I signed up for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even without the app, after I JB-ed my device and started running PMP (Protect My Privacy), and Firewall IP, two apps available from Cydia, it was an eye-opener.

      I ran a news app. It connected to an insane amount of ad, behaviorial targeting, monitoring, tracking, and other sites that had zilch to deal with news, and all to deal with obtaining what the user has. Eventually, I just allowed it to connect to its own sites and blacklisted everything else.

      I fired up another app. It didn't just want contacts, it wanted in one's music collection, and connected to all kinds of sites, none relevant in any way to what it was doing.

      Apple needs to revisit iOS's security model. Because Apple does a damn good job at stopping most stuff before it gets on the App Store, it has kept people safe for a while. However, iOS's security allows an app to do what it wants to except delete pictures once it gets installed on the device. The only time a user would get prompted is if the device was using the GPS or was going to use notifications. Other than that, it could slurp the contact list and use the phone as an outgoing spam machine.

    2. Re:Not what I signed up for by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Access to contacts actually requires explicit authorisation too now. In the next software release anyway.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    3. Re:Not what I signed up for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see, so am I supposed to be happy to find out that Apple is fixing this minor oversight that persisted in versions 1-5, after they sold the privilege of collecting my personal data to anyone who 'registered' as a developer?

      If the good folks at Apple didn't understand that this is a fundamental breach of trust, then AT&T certainly should have... Wait, they're the ones responsible for colluding with the CIA for all those years between the end of WWII and the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr that resulted in the passage of the FISA laws?

      Oh, wait... that was the original AT&T, this is really Cingular.

      Whew! I was confused there for a moment. Cingular are the good guys. The ones who are really 3 of the 7 Regional Bell Operating Companies that were broken out of the DOJ's antitrust lawsuit against AT&T.

      They must have been the good ones or they wouldn't have been able to reconstitute themselves, buy Ameritech and decide that they could partner with Apple to bring us all the goodness in that shiny flashy new Gorilla Glassed case full of wide open (for a price) intrusion into every aspect of your day-to-day telecommunications.

      *pauses to answer a knock at the door*

      I'm sorry, I'll have to continue this later. ATM I'm being asked to come quietly and answer a few questions, at an undisclosed location.

    4. Re:Not what I signed up for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this behavior acceptable any app? If you bought a PC program that compiled a list of your contacts, music, and data, the developing company would be all over the news. Why are we allowing phone developers to operate a different code of ethics?

  4. Most of the app developers probably don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That the ad library they embed is tracking the user location.

    1. Re:Most of the app developers probably don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (posting AC to preserve mod points given) I have an iPhone myself, and while I know that I have very little control over what information gets shared with, well, whoever, I thought that the location info was still one of the few things that still needed to be explicitly requested before it could be tracked. At least with the apps themselves, that is the case. Are you saying that even among apps that don't ask for location info, it can still be used without my permission if they include the default iDevice ad libraries?

      This is a very scary thought.

    2. Re:Most of the app developers probably don't know by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you embed iAds, it actually doesn't require your permission - as the setting controlling whether iAds is allowed your location is actually buried under Location Services > System Services (yes, the advertising is a system service). Third party advertising kits (AdMob, etc) do require your permission.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    3. Re:Most of the app developers probably don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The important detail you're leaving out is that this location data isn't going to the developer.

    4. Re:Most of the app developers probably don't know by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      I figured it was implied. But yes, that's right. Presumably the BitDefender app only detected that location data was sent somewhere without considering where it went.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  5. Sounds correct by freeweaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course, you understand this has nothing to do with privacy right? The app was pulled because it didn't conform to our freedom respecting terms & conditions.

    That is, our freedom to collect all your data.

  6. Cydia by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2

    Hope to see it there soon.

  7. no problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just check the box for an alternate app store, and install it from there

    Oh, wait... never mind.

  8. Yargh! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    It's unclear [why it was yanked], and Bitdefender told SecurityWeek that the company is under NDA as far as explanations for the removal.

    But we're the tech community, dammit! We're going to assume the worst! Argh! Hate! Mbxpz! Grrr! Woof! Howl!

    1. Re:Yargh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you think I should assume that Apple had my best interested at heart, and were protecting me from knowing too much?

      Thanks! Glad I don't have to worry! Back to FOOTBALL!!!

    2. Re:Yargh! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Apple needs to explain, otherwise assuming the worst is warranted. And your insult to nerds was a bit flamebaitish, Mr. Fanboi.

    3. Re:Yargh! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah! I forgot that one! "Argh! Strawman! Grrr!"

    4. Re:Yargh! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Ooo! Good catch. Forgot that one, too. Fanboi labels for all who dare not agree!

      And your insult to nerds

      Oh, please. The geekverse has become an intellectual cesspit.

  9. NDA What? by sir-gold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What kind of NDA do they have that keeps them from saying why it was pulled? (or do they have a "fight club" NDA prohibiting them from talking about the NDA?)

    Does Apple make every iOS developer sign an NDA, or only the security researchers.

    Something doesn't add up here.

    1. Re:NDA What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Federal government routinely (anymore) uses National Security Letters to shred the entire Bill of Rights, and one of the provisions of NSLs is an NDA. After the Patriot Act was passed, anyone violating that NDA risked going to prison. Today, they can just disappear.

      I small a rotten fish, not Apple, at the core of this particular "incident", a rotten fish wrapped in an old Washington Post newspaper, if you know what I mean.

    2. Re:NDA What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All iOS developers sign an NDA, this is common knowledge, why is it modded up.

    3. Re:NDA What? by Raenex · · Score: 2

      The Federal government routinely (anymore) uses National Security Letters to shred the entire Bill of Rights, and one of the provisions of NSLs is an NDA.

      Before anybody gets too excited about this theory, from the second sentence in the article: "Dubbed 'Clueful' by Bucharest, Romania-based Bitdefender [..]"

    4. Re:NDA What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if I recall correctly, Romania is in line to join both NATO and the EU.

      So, there wouldn't be any bit of USA official presence in Romania (like the FBI), nor the available political pressure to coerce a Romanian-based company into compliance with Big Brother's wishes. Nor would there be any pressure that could be applied to this firm, say for instance, regarding arresting their in-country corporate presence or freezing their bank accounts. /snark

    5. Re:NDA What? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      What kind of NDA do they have that keeps them from saying why it was pulled?

      Probably the kind of NDA that keeps them from saying why it was pulled. As in, "we're pulling your app, if you want to know why sign here."

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    6. Re:NDA What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All iOS developers sign an NDA, this is common knowledge

      The first rule in the NDA is that you don't talk about the NDA. So no, it isn't common knowledge, or at least wasn't until you broke the NDA. Expect some fruity lawyers on your doorstep first thing in the morning.

    7. Re:NDA What? by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well technically, the NDA has been dropped, but...

      Relenting to pressure from the developer community, Apple has dropped the NDAs that developers were required to agree to when they submitted their applications for consideration on the iPhone App Store.

      In a statement on its Web site, Apple states, "The NDA has created too much of a burden on developers, authors and others interested in helping further the iPhone's success, so we are dropping it for released software."

      The previous version of the NDA required that a developer not discuss the reasons that its app may have been declined, and restricted developers from publicly rebutting Apple's refusal or dissecting the denial notification that Apple sent them. The revised NDA allows developers to publicly comment on the reasons their app was accepted or declined, and it allows developers to state that they've submitted an app for consideration--but unreleased software currently under review is still covered by the NDA, and Apple has asked developers not to comment on applications currently being considered for the App Store.

      http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2331498,00.asp

      ...but as the New York Times knows already (and every news outlet knows as well). There does not need to be an NDA in place for Apple to place you permanently in their penalty box.

      So I'd say the Bitdefender company definitely made the right call on this one, especially if it intends to have continued special access to the Apple ecosystem. The huge beast is quick-tempered and bears long grudges. It's best to say nothing that could potentially upset it.

    8. Re:NDA What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? (Probably more than) half the governments of the ex-Soviet-Union and Arabic states are under US control. Or did you miss that whole "orange revolution" scandal? (Yes, the other half is probably under Russian control.)

      Also, with things like secret US gulags in Poland, it's really meaningless where it is made to originate from.

    9. Re:NDA What? by watice · · Score: 1

      "If your app is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps." http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/app-store-guidelines.pdf

    10. Re:NDA What? by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      We *are* in NATO and in the EU already. And yeah, they do whatever they want to us. There are US military bases and EU regulations that don't take into account the way people live around here. E.g. they make sheperds transport sheep in cramped up trucks because moving by foot for a few days would be too "traumatizing" for the poor critters.

      --
      ics
    11. Re:NDA What? by Deorus · · Score: 2

      I'm an iOS developer, and I didn't sign anything. I agree to specific conditions under specific terms, but there's no signature anywhere to prove it, thus the only consequence of violating such NDA would be to get banned. Furthermore, the NDA that I agreed to only has to do with Apple software, not with other apps. Finally, even if all iOS developers had to sign anything, nobody needs to be an iOS developer in order to analyze iOS apps.

    12. Re:NDA What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nilay Patel?

  10. Uunbeknownst? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Informative

    including the fact that 41.4 percent of apps were shown to track a user's location unbeknownst to them.

    Unless they're doing something shady with private APIs or the like, I don't see how this is possible considering an app has to ask permission to enable location tracking, and the user can both see which applications they've granted it to and which ones have used it in the last 24 hours by going to their general settings.

    I think what they really mean is, "We have nothing to lose after having our app pulled, so let's burn bridges by pretending that user's don't explicitly give permission for location tracking and saying that every app that tracks location is doing it behind the user's backs."

    Also, what's up with both links in the summary going to the same article?

  11. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's unclear [why it was yanked], and Bitdefender told SecurityWeek that the company is under NDA as far as explanations for the removal.

    Why is this allowed? Corporations shouldn't be allowed to violate freedom of speech. I think its high time the First Amendment was updated to reflect the realities of the modern world.

  12. Who's that? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's Clueful, he fights for the iUsers.

    1. Re:Who's that? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      That's Clueful, he fights for the iUsers.

      and to be out of mod points, damn you MCP!!!!

      --
      Be seeing you...
  13. Re:Sounds like scare-ware to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with this sort of app is it is delivering information based on some probing and some guesses but has no idea what is being done with the information. Not knowing anything about Clueful I can only guess they are looking for API calls that would tend to indicate certain behaviors are present in an app.

    The first caution therefore is that because an API call is present in an app there is nothing whatsoever to indicate when or how it is being used, if it is being used at all. Therefore we are talking about possibilities and potentialialities, not facts.

    Emphasis mine. There is no problem with this sort of application. This is exactly the reason the application exists, to inform you that you have no idea what is being done with the information.

    Seems like you're either a shill, or completely missed the point that such applications and users of such applications have a desire to know more (than apparently 40% of the other applications aren't telling).

  14. In the know... by ras · · Score: 2

    Does this mean the difference between Android malware and iOS malware is you know what information the Android malware is stealing?

    1. Re:In the know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah but you don't even have the illusion that you can do anything about it. At the very least, iDevices give you the illusion of being able to disable location tracking on a per-app basis, and at best, they actually let you do that.

    2. Re:In the know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disable location in the settings. The apps that use it will prompt. If this isn't the case, 90% of the apps I've checked out prompt for location info. Does that mean the rest use it but don't prompt for it? Along the same lines of thought, why do so many single player games and file-handling apps use locations?

  15. Re:Sounds like scare-ware to me by Halo1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with this sort of app is it is delivering information based on some probing and some guesses but has no idea what is being done with the information. Not knowing anything about Clueful ...

    Not knowing anything about Clueful, you spend 5 paragraphs criticising the developers of that application for presenting information that may not be 100% correct. You need to look up the definition of "irony" and do it fast, because I feel a new one is in the making.

    --
    Donate free food here
  16. Apple Yanks? by dohzer · · Score: 1

    It's a bit harsh to call them that!

  17. Walled Garden by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not at all unsympathetic, but that's what you get when you develop for a "curated" platform.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So these developers galled the warden, eh?

  18. Either the user controls the program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or the program controls the user

  19. Has Apple got something to hide? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Just asking the obvious.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  20. Public Service Announcement by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Troll

    Just a reminder for anyone who's been on vacation the past few weeks:

    Apple products are no longer cool. And increasingly, owning an Apple product makes you a big douchebag.

    Be advised. You don't want to buy a new iPhone or iPad and then find out that everyone looks at you like a huge loser for supporting a company that doesn't want you to be able to find out what they are doing with your information.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Public Service Announcement by Deorus · · Score: 1

      Be advised. You don't want to buy a new iPhone or iPad and then find out that everyone looks at you like a huge loser for supporting a company that doesn't want you to be able to find out what they are doing with your information.

      I find this kind of application of the verb "to support" as wrong outside of charity as I find the use of the term "to steal" when applied to copying. I'm not supporting anyone or anything by buying a product, I am paying money IN EXCHANGE for something I want.

      Regarding your last remark, don't all companies do that? Can you name a single IT company that is truly transparent about the ways in which the data that they collect about you is used? If not, then what would you suggest as an alternative? And if your alternative is to simply disconnect from the system, can't you see that such a retarded martyr mentality is giving you even less freedom than the average Joe's mentality?

    2. Re:Public Service Announcement by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'm not supporting anyone or anything by buying a product, I am paying money IN EXCHANGE for something I want.

      Fair enough.

      But I like to think of it as two farmers selling peaches off their trucks along the road. One occasionally gives his dog a hard kick in the ribs for no good reason, while the other one occasionally reaches down and scratches his dog behind the ear and says, "good dog".

      It's easy for me to decide which one gets my business.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  21. preface: I'm not an IOS programmer... by logicassasin · · Score: 1

    ... however, does an app HAVE to ask permission in order to enable that functionality? Up front, I would imagine that an attempt to access a feature via API call that the info box would automatically pop up to grant permission, but can this be suppressed? And further, if it can be suppressed, can the user input be mimicked or a bit set to say "the user is ok with this"?

    This is just my tin-foil hat I-haven't-programmed-anything-since-my-old-Amiga rant, but it seems like it could be plausible.

    --
    Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
    1. Re:preface: I'm not an IOS programmer... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, they have to ask. The prompt is generated automatically in response to their request for location data, as you suggested, and suppressing it would do no good, since apps are sandboxed, meaning that they have no other recourse if the user denies the prompt or never sees it in the first place. I'm not aware of any way around it, and I seriously doubt there's a way around that's in use by a double-digit percentage of apps but has not yet been discovered by Apple and eliminated.

    2. Re:preface: I'm not an IOS programmer... by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The exception is if they have iAds embedded, as iAds has location services enabled for it specifically. He was probably seeing the results of the iAds system pulling location details so it can get location-based adverts.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    3. Re:preface: I'm not an IOS programmer... by jxander · · Score: 1

      Yes, an app MUST ask for permission ... but how many users read those popups?

      "This app would like.." yes yes whatever, just shutup and let me fling birds at pigs!

      --
      This signature is false.
    4. Re:preface: I'm not an IOS programmer... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      The prompt is generated automatically in response to their request for location data, as you suggested [...]

      Can you talk to the hardware?

      I remember seeing iPhone apps way back when that appeared to do this in order to query information from the GPS like what satellites it was using, etc. It was awhile ago and maybe these were jailbroken apps...

  22. unbeknownst to them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's impossible to get geo information from CoreLocation without the user tapping the "Allow" button that's presented by iOS which asks them if the app wants to use it's location.

    These are a ton of privacy issues with apps, but this assertion that users are having their location used without their knowledge is just sensational, inaccurate reporting.

    1. Re:unbeknownst to them? by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not entirely. iAds can get your location without permission because it has a completely separate pre-approved entry under System Services to do it. So if the app uses iAds, it will appear to get your location without asking for it (even though only iAds has access to it).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  23. Re:Sounds like scare-ware to me by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    But immediately gets modded to the max. See "rotten apple" above.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  24. Re:Sounds like scare-ware to me by jxander · · Score: 2

    Ignorance is no excuse for sloppy programming. If you're an App Developer, it's your responsibility to make a solid and secure app.

    If you cannot make your app solid and secure (i.e. by eliminating random location checks) then the users deserve to know of your incompetence.

    --
    This signature is false.
  25. Re:Sounds like scare-ware to me by CCarrot · · Score: 1

    The first caution therefore is that because an API call is present in an app there is nothing whatsoever to indicate when or how it is being used, if it is being used at all. Therefore we are talking about possibilities and potentialialities, not facts.

    Indeed. That is why this app is a good thing. If there are API calls in there that don't have any apparent relation to the app's purported function, then the developer had better be prepared to explain exactly why that call is in there, and what it is doing with the information. If they aren't doing anything with it, then they'd still better have an extremely good reason for pulling it, not "well, we might need it for future planned features". If they need the info in the future, then they adjust their permissions requests with the user's consent before pulling the info.

    Transparency, it's not just for Saran Wrap anymore. (was going to say 'windows', but the irony in that statement just almost knocked me over...)

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  26. my app doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [itunes.apple.com/us/app/dredging-toolbox/id458919054?mt=8]
    While of questionable use to anyone not in the dredging community, my app does exactly what it says nothing more.

    Really the App world needs to be opened to public code reviews and open source policy.
    If it's a walled garden then apple should have been protecting us from these obvious malware attempts.

    1. Re:my app doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      way to suck at links AC

    2. Re:my app doesn't by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      Your completely unable to copy and paste? Guess the *tards are out in force tonight.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    3. Re:my app doesn't by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Your completely unable to copy and paste? Guess the *tards are out in force tonight.

      *you're.

      Ah, irony. Not just a method of getting creases out of clothes.

  27. Re:Sounds like scare-ware to me by jmerlin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It doesn't matter. Perhaps this tool doesn't go far enough. DTrace provides you direct insight into what's going on, and you have access to enough syscalls to actually figure out what's being done with information, too. I'd love a full DTrace on my iPhone and an app that's set up to periodically watch apps to see if they're doing anything weird. I audit software like this on my Linux and Windows systems ALL the time. I've even made basic binary instrumentation tools to automatically instrument binary libraries (imports/exports) to get more application-specific information. It's amazing to see what some applications do with your information. Unless we require software vendors to disclose every I/O action that a piece of software can possibly make (and what the purpose of such an action is) truthfully, which will never be a requirement, we need tools like this. The certainty is a non-factor. It simply shows you that an application accesses something.

    For instance, if my instant messaging program is accessing my recent internet history from Internet Explorer or Chrome, I'm going to get really, REALLY skeptical that it has any business whatsoever looking at that. It doesn't matter if there's a legitimate reason for it.

  28. Just a random thought by LiroXIV · · Score: 1

    Has anyone considered that Apple might be pulling a Siri here and acquiring it?

    1. Re:Just a random thought by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Apple adding a feature to their phone that makes the actions and transgressions of other apps much more transparent? No, I don't think anyone has seriously considered that.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Just a random thought by LiroXIV · · Score: 1

      Well, this appears to be quite similar to the type of permission stuff we see in Android, except more. If Apple is always trying to one-up them, this is a logical progression

  29. Get more info on the 2600 magazine summer 2012 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is an article on a nice individual that took the time to check this issue out.

  30. Deja vu by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    all over again?

    There's probably more one than write up in Slashdot, but I couldn't find the one I was looking for

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  31. Other reason for it being pulled by Bogtha · · Score: 2

    an iOS App that helps identify potentially intrusive applications and show users what they do behind their back

    Apple don't typically allow you to snoop on what other applications are doing. Applications are supposed to be sandboxed to prevent this. I would assume that there's a far more mundane reason for banning this application - that it was doing things it wasn't supposed to be doing.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    1. Re:Other reason for it being pulled by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight: This app managed to break through the sandbox and present that information? And, back in May, somebody approved this!?

      Gee, I wonder what other apps that aren't so blatant about breaking through the sandbox got approved...

  32. Interesting by wzinc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The fact that 41.4 percent of apps were shown to track a user's location unbeknownst to them."

    ...because iOS always asks on the first location look-up and it always shows the arrow/gps icon in the upper right. Also, you can shut off GPS app-by-app or for all in the prefs. If apps are somehow going around Apple's only way to access the GPS, they wouldn't be approved; this is impossible. Obviously, if BitDefender's app can tell that easily, Apple's screening process would detect a private API GPS call, and flag the app. A few falling through the cracks is one thing, but 41.1% is some type of sensationalism or scare-mongering (i.e. a lie). The only possibility of any truth is that "bad" apps send-out the wifi base station name or IP address and get a general location from that. They're not accessing the GPS without permission.

    1. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A large portion of the 41.4 percent must relate to iAds?

    2. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, I love this bit in your comment:

      If apps are somehow going around Apple's only way to access the GPS, they wouldn't be approved; this is impossible.

      Well.. this story is how Apple removed Clueful from the app store, very likely for doing things it shouldn't be doing (i.e. getting out of the sandbox and snooping on other apps' behaviours). So, in fact, it seems quite possible that apps can go around Apple to do $thing_they're_not_supposed_to_do and still pass the review process (after all, Clueful did).

      tl;dr: You should probably revise your definition of "impossible".

    3. Re:Interesting by wzinc · · Score: 1
      Fact:

      If apps are somehow going around Apple's only way to access the GPS, they wouldn't be approved

      Assumption:

      very likely for doing things it shouldn't be doing

      I think I'll stick with my definition.

    4. Re:Interesting by Deorus · · Score: 1

      Well.. this story is how Apple removed Clueful from the app store, very likely for doing things it shouldn't be doing (i.e. getting out of the sandbox and snooping on other apps' behaviours). So, in fact, it seems quite possible that apps can go around Apple to do $thing_they're_not_supposed_to_do and still pass the review process (after all, Clueful did).

      It would be very hard for an app to get out of the sandbox without that being noticed. Under controlled conditions, noticing that would be trivial unless the app prevented the code from executing during approval time, in which case it would simply not function. More than likely the app simply checks out what you have installed and compares it to a list of apps that the authors have previously analyzed under controlled conditions. This, in turn, would make the authors' analysis tools pretty good for Apple's own screening process.

  33. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Vampire friends ...........

  34. Re:Sounds like scare-ware to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually there are methods to detect whether something is encrypted, or more accurately the likelihood that something is encrypted. Institutional code-breakers use it all the time in screening information streams.

  35. Re:Sounds like scare-ware to me by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

    Gee and I thought I was the only person this paranoid. I've been using instrumentation of my systems since mi Amigas.

    --
    "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
  36. My Clueful crashes at a perfect rate of 100% . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought Clueful five minutes after reading about it, paying something like 28 SKR = 4 USD. It has not worked once, but instead crashed everytime on my IOS5, never tampered with, iPhone4S. Reinstalled 10+ times.

    This was 1-2+ months ago and there have been no updates.

    1. Re:My Clueful crashes at a perfect rate of 100% . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and its not in my purchased history anymore.

  37. Time to go... by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    ...to Cydia where sympathy for Apple's banhammer is found in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  38. If they are under NDA... by Deorus · · Score: 1

    The only plausible explanation I see is that they were either hired by or are in negotiations with Apple. There is no other way Apple could force an NDA on them. The reason for pulling the app is probably the same as for pulling the original Siri app. Makes perfect sense for Apple to hire these people to help them screen apps, considering that they've both proven to be better at it than Apple themselves and that they're motivated.

  39. Worst Offender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been saying for years that I won't have anything to do with Apple. It started for me with iTunes and the restrictions that it imposed on access to my devices. Then there was the geo-tracking logs that were revealed on the iphone and the general way that Apple likes to restrict user access to it's hardware.
    They are the worst offender when it comes to open systems and user tracking. Dump your iphone in the nearest trashcan and learn to live without it. While they have such a huge lock on the market, they have no reason to change, give them a reason.
    Bad Apple, down boy.