First iOS, Now Mac OS X In-App Purchases Hacked

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First iOS, Now Mac OS X In-App Purchases Hacked

Posted by timothy on Saturday July 21, 2012 @03:15AM from the next-up-7-11-purchases dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Last week Russian developer Alexey Borodin hacked Apple's In-App Purchase program for all devices running iOS 3.0 or later, allowing iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch users to circumvent the payment process and essentially steal in-app content. Apple [Friday] announced a temporary fix and that it would patch the holes with the release of iOS 6. While Cupertino was distracted, Borodin came in and pulled off the same scheme on the Mac."

59 of 110 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Overreacting by mwvdlee · 2012-07-21 03:26 · Score: 4, Funny

allowing iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch users to circumvent the payment process and essentially steal in-app content
You mean the users (well... only one user) can actually copy and delete it from the application vendors' hardware? Wow, that is bad!

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
1. Re:Overreacting by Jeremy+Erwin · 2012-07-21 03:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Unfortunately, the law doesn't evolve. Larceny has different moral implications than tresspass, and the law should reflect that.
2. Re:Overreacting by ThunderBird89 · 2012-07-21 03:59 · Score: 2
  
  This is not theft. Theft means you take something from the victim, something he will no longer possess. In all such cases, the victim will remain in possession of the 'stolen' object, therefore one can argue that no actual theft has taken place.
  As the often-repeated analogue goes, it's like someone stole your cat overnight, but in the morning, you'd still have it.
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
3. Re:Overreacting by gnasher719 · 2012-07-21 04:10 · Score: 2
  
  This is not theft. Theft means you take something from the victim, something he will no longer possess. In all such cases, the victim will remain in possession of the 'stolen' object, therefore one can argue that no actual theft has taken place.
  Depending on interpretation, it is either fraud or copyright infringement. I'd tend more to call it fraud. Like getting a CD from a physical store by convincing the cashier that you paid for it, when you actually didn't; that wouldn't be theft but fraud.
  
  What would be dangerous would be an interpretation as computer hacking. Don't know what exactly the laws would be called, but that could be worse than fraud.
4. Re:Overreacting by mister_playboy · 2012-07-21 04:12 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Conflation of stealing and copying is deliberate propaganda by those who believe in imaginary property.
  Corporate doublespeak and nothing more.
  
  --
  Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
5. Re:Overreacting by ThunderBird89 · 2012-07-21 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly.
  Copyright infringment? Sure thing.
  Fraud? Certainly.
  But not theft, neither of those is theft, legally speaking.
  And they usually call hacking ... well, hacking. Or computer fraud, or misuse of (unauthorized) access. Usually along these lines, emphasizing access, not gains or similar.
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
6. Re:Overreacting by Jeremy+Erwin · 2012-07-21 04:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  my dear sir, i do believe that qualifies as a cliche. Congratulations, you've take the fisrt step into a smaller world. I find your ideas interesting, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Most cordially, 2054
7. Re:Overreacting by Baloroth · 2012-07-21 04:51 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Pretend you are a software developer (I can already tell you are not). By your logic, it's totally fine if everyone downloads your software without paying for it. After all, you've lost nothing, right? None of the software you have is gone, so everything is great. Right?
  Yes indeed. Red Hat makes billions of dollars doing this, and Linus Torvalds (together with everyone who works on the GNU project) has done it for years as well.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
8. Re:Overreacting by ThunderBird89 · 2012-07-21 04:54 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I am not a developer, true, I'm more of a legal expert.
  But let's imagine I'm a dev, and my product was "stolen", to put it this way. I check my hard drive, yep, source still there, binaries present, everything's accounted for. The problem isn't that something is gone, the problem is that there's now two of it, one not under my control. Nothing was taken per se, and hurting my commercial interests is quite another thing, not covered by theft.
  So yes, the way you put it, "everything is great. Right.". What's not "totally fine" is what you don't emphasize: not paying for it (assuming I wanted payment in the first place), but that is not covered by the meaning of 'theft'.
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
9. Re:Overreacting by iluvcapra · 2012-07-21 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  1) Create software that expert support in order to support or customize for just about any commercial purpose
  2) Give software away for free
  3) Profit
  I don't see how this model would work for games, or really any kind of software the "indie" developer would write. You could still make money if you were a platform vendor, but really, in the end, you're talking about the end of third-party application business as a commercial enterprise (unless you can convince every mom and pop user to sign support contracts for your distro of AbiWord, and Inkscape...).
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
10. Re:Overreacting by gnasher719 · 2012-07-21 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  This is not theft. Theft means you take something from the victim, something he will no longer possess. In all such cases, the victim will remain in possession of the 'stolen' object, therefore one can argue that no actual theft has taken place.
  An interesting difference between US and German law: US law includes "deprive the rightful owner", while German law includes "enrich the unlawful taker". So with the German interpretation theft would have taken place (except there "theft" is only for physical items).
11. Re:Overreacting by ThunderBird89 · 2012-07-21 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not rationalizing, I'm just calling attention to the fact that "copyright infringement" is not "theft".
  Let me quote something from the Hungarian Penal code (Section XVIII - Crimes against property):
  
  316 (1) He who takes a foreign object from another to illegally misappropriate it, commits the crime of Theft [Aki idegen dolgot mástól azért vesz el, hogy azt jogtalanul eltulajdonítsa, lopást követ el.]
  Let's parse this sentence grammatically, or rather, focus on one word: "take [vesz el]"! In both Hungarian and in English, the word in question has one significant connotation: that what you take from another becomes yours, and ceases to be theirs. This is all dandy and fine, as long as we assume that there can only be one instance of the object in question. And we know by experience that this is not the case with the binary blobs we transfer over BitTorrent. Therefore, copyright infringement, while criminalized in itself, does not fall under the heading of theft, since the rightful owner remains in possession as well.
  Or let me bring an example from a tad more powerful jurisdiction: United States penal code, TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY, CHAPTER 31. THEFT:
  
  Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.
  To parse this one, we need to take a look at the definitions section at the beginning of the chapter:
  
  "Deprive" means:
  (A) to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner;
  (B) to restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or
  (C) to dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely.
  Now let us compare this with BitTorrenting:
  "to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner" - Negative, I can still play the movie I'm seeding to 17,569 other people, so the enjoyment is not obstructed; and the copy is an exact copy of the original, therefore no loss of value occurs.
  "to restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation" - Negative, the owner remains in possession of the data, therefore I cannot restore it upon payment of reward
  "to dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely" - Negative, for the above reasons.
  Therefore, we have conclusively proved that using BitTorrent, or any other form of piracy or such, is not theft. Also note that I am not saying this makes it legal, as copyright infringement itself is an offence punishable by law, I am only saying that calling it theft is baseless and factually and legally incorrect.
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
12. Re:Overreacting by fredprado · 2012-07-21 05:35 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry, but you are not taking the the time the coder spent. That resulted in a product that he can still sell even if you take for free. That is certainly not the case with the hooker. For her the time spent is gone.
13. Re:Overreacting by fredprado · 2012-07-21 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  It is called online games. You give the game for free and sell services. You don't need even to sell playing time. LoL made millions of dollars and is doing very well just selling aesthetic character customizations that do not alter the game play.
  
  But even single player games sell well without DRM. Good Old Games is doing well afaik, for example, and their games can be pirated and are indeed pirated with easy.
14. Re:Overreacting by ThunderBird89 · 2012-07-21 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Which is a synonym for "I'm right.". Since we're talking about law, and law is, you know, 'pedantic'...
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
15. Re:Overreacting by fredprado · 2012-07-21 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  You know what more takes the value of your product? Competition, time, technology, bad publicity, restricting laws and even luck.
  
  Because something took the value of your product that does not mean you were entitled to have its full value from the beginning.
16. Re:Overreacting by ThunderBird89 · 2012-07-21 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Before you (and everyone else reading this) gets me wrong: I am NOT a legal EXPERT. I am more of a legal expert than a developer. Not a lawyer as such, but I have studied international law extensively and have touched upon other legal areas during my studies. Therefore I dare say I am more qualified than most people here to comment upon legal issues.
  And before everyone takes offense, I'll admit that most people here are infinitely more qualified to comment upon programming and most other technical matters!
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
17. Re:Overreacting by greg1104 · 2012-07-21 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  I am a software developer, working on an open-source database. That everyone will download the software I work on without paying for it is my business model.
18. Re:Overreacting by beelsebob · 2012-07-21 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  And when everyone says that, how does the coder make money?
19. Re:Overreacting by jpapon · 2012-07-21 06:29 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  He can't sell it if everyone just steals it. The problem with this "but they still have it" line of reasoning is that while it may work on an individual basis, it doesn't work in the aggregate. If everyone steals the app, then the developer's time is indeed being stolen, since they are getting paid nothing for their work. Just like the hooker.
  This isn't a modern thing, as much as we like to make it out to be one. People have been selling intangibles for a long time and "theft" has applied to non-physical goods for just as long.
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
20. Re:Overreacting by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-07-21 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  as for game devs team fortress 2 while not Stalman free is free to play and download. yet the game devs make millions off of it by selling silly hats and slightly better guns that you can still get not paying you just have to play long enough. also there is ad supported software. lots of ways to have free apps and make money. you can also charge for compiled binaries of free/open source apps you have posted on app stores, for copyleft ones all you need to do is link to the original source code.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
21. Re:Overreacting by EdIII · 2012-07-21 07:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Language evolves.
  Deal with it.
  NO
  This is not the evolution of language. It is the misappropriation of a word to give meaning to an action that is wholly inappropriate.
  Evolution of language is just fine. For example, we could all agree that the word rape is an acceptable word to describe unflattering comments that a man may make to a woman regarding her pictures on Facebook. What is not fine, is applying the consequences of the "archaic" definition of the word at the same time.
  If you insist on the stupidity of using the word steal to mean, "any acts of copyright infringement", then you must at the same time alter the perceived consequences and negativity of that word.
  That does not make any sense does it? Why pervert and devalue the word steal when it is quite useful to mean the deprivation of real property without authorization? Why confuse the word with wholly contradictory definition?
  Doing something that ridiculous is not the evolution of language at all. In fact, it is most often used as a manipulative tactic in the overall discussion of intellectual property, the Public Domain, and the evolution of our society with respect to both.
22. Re:Overreacting by EdIII · 2012-07-21 07:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's a different problem, and by no means an excuse to use the word steal in such a way. Two wrongs don't make a right.
  It's wholly incorrect, inappropriate, illogical, an unethical to use the word steal with respect to copyright infringement. It will never be useful, nor constructive in any meaningful conversation regarding the Public Domain and how Intellectual Property can encourage further contributions towards it.
  If you want to have a serious conversation regarding these matters, then we can have it when you are ready to sit down rationally and stop using manipulative tactics to steer the conversation.
23. Re:Overreacting by fredprado · 2012-07-21 07:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Reality says otherwise. GoG is selling games without DRM even if many people pirate them. The MAFIAA earns billions of dollars a year selling goods even with 'rampant piracy'. A lot of indies have been successful selling games that have been pirated a LOT.
  
  The term 'Theft' does not apply to IP by any law code of any country in the world. So no, you are just wrong. Using the wrong word to define something serves only the purpose of propagating lies. You may do it from ignorance or malice but either way you are to be shunned for it.
24. Re:Overreacting by EdIII · 2012-07-21 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  He can't sell it if everyone just steals it.
  No stealing occurred. His opportunity to sell it remains intact as his possession of the code and legal entitlements (copyright) were never impacted.
  
  The problem with this "but they still have it" line of reasoning is that while it may work on an individual basis, it doesn't work in the aggregate
  Yes, yes it does. Regardless whether it is an act committed towards an individual, or a group, the only thing occurring is copyright infringement.
  What you are trying to say is that mass copyright infringement is detrimental so we should apply the same consequences of theft to copyright infringement, even though the definitions are radically different.
  
  If everyone steals the app, then the developer's time is indeed being stolen, since they are getting paid nothing for their work.
  That's impossible. I can only "steal" your time if I physically restrain you. Even then, it is not really your time I have deprived you of, but your free will. So what you are really trying to say is that because mass copyright infringement is undesirable to the coder, that as a group we have deprived him of the desired outcome of his time.
  What kind of entitled 4-year old bullshit mentality is that?
  His time was not stolen and the fruits of his labor still exist. The app exists. He is not entitled to massive sales, riches, fame, and the group sex with hot celebrities that he may be hoping for. We all want a pony too right?
  
  This isn't a modern thing, as much as we like to make it out to be one. People have been selling intangibles for a long time and "theft" has applied to non-physical goods for just as long.
  Since when ??
  People have not been selling intangibles for a long time. That's ridiculous. People have been selling their labor and skills for thousands of years. It took quite a bit of effort to make a book before the printing press. It was not an "intangible" that was sold back then, but the freakin book.
  I think you are trying to conflate privileges that were granted by royalty several hundred years ago. It is quite a stretch to equate that with "sales". Modern intellectual property law only goes back ~200 years. It is not coincidence that in all that time they did not explicitly use the word theft either to describe copyright infringement. They used the word infringement instead. Wonder why....
  Your real issue apparently is that with a ubiquitous and cheap means of distributing intellectual property (perfectly every time), that a developer has far less abilities to control said distribution with an iron grip to extract payment in exchange for a grant of legal entitlements to use said intellectual property.
  That's a real issue. We can discuss it. We are not going to be irrational and incorrect with the usage of the word steal while we do it though......
25. Re:Overreacting by EdIII · 2012-07-21 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Are you a fucking moron? While you're screwing your mom, she won't be making any money off the other clients
  Not technically true.... I've seen these instructional videos on the Internets that show some mothers servicing several clients at the same time....
26. Re:Overreacting by Stan92057 · 2012-07-21 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Our prisons are overflowing with people who think like you do. Your thinking is seriously flawed.
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
27. Re:Overreacting by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-21 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Pretend you are a software developer (I can already tell you are not). By your logic, it's totally fine if everyone downloads your software without paying for it. After all, you've lost nothing, right? None of the software you have is gone, so everything is great. Right?
  Wrong..
  Why do you child molesters keep droning on with this shit.
  Copyright infringement IS WRONG. It is not a good thing to do. It is not an honest thing to do. It is not the right thing to do. Clear?
  But it is also NOT THEFT. And those who insist on accuracy, are not condoning the unlawful acquisition of copyright material. Just exposing the weakness of your argument.
  If I steal a book from a book shop, there is one less copy of that book in the shop. The victim being short the item I have stolen is a condition of it being a theft. Just as someone being dead at the hands of someone else by deliberate action is a condition for a murder.
  If I read the book in the store, I have stolen nothing. I may annoy the shop owner, I may be asked to leave, but I will not be accused of stealing the book because I read it. Because no copy of the book has left the shop in my possession without me paying for it.
  Words mean stuff. Use the right ones, and you will be understood. Use the most emotive one, and you have already lost the argument.
  If I pirate a song, There is one more copy of the song in existence, and it cost the maker nothing to make. This however, does not make it right. Because the song was produced on the understanding that anybody who wanted to listen to it at their discretion paid for the privilege. This is still not theft. It is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. The offence already has a name. Use it.
  Personally, I choose to not pirate. I also choose to not buy music from artists I don't like, or buy books that are locked away unless I use a blessed device to read them. I buy media based on my wants and needs. Not based on who will profit.
28. Re:Overreacting by ThunderBird89 · 2012-07-21 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Do explain...
  If you're referring to copyright infringers, that's because that in itself is a crime, but under a different heading.
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
29. Re:Overreacting by fredprado · 2012-07-21 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  As soon as you can properly speak in English and use the correct terms to express your ideas we can discuss if infringing other people copyrights is so bad as you think.
  
  On the other hand, as long as you keep using the wrong words to try and express your ideas you will be at most the target of jokes and contempt. The choice is yours, but keep in mind that being stubborn makes very little to help your cause.
30. Re:Overreacting by EdIII · 2012-07-21 08:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Who said I was happy? I am decidedly unhappy about all of this.
  You're doing it again too. Nobody stole anybody's else's work. Did not happen.
  In fact, the only times that it may have happened is when the 1%'s (aka Rich Whitey) use their lawyers and fancy book learning to swindle poor artists out of their copyrights entirely. Or it could be Suge Knight hanging Vanilla Ice out of a hotel balcony if you believe the story.
  What I am not okay with is the fact we are using intellectual property as an excuse to violate our fundamental freedoms and do more damage to society by trying to hammer an outmoded system of encouraging contributions towards the Public Domain.
  That is the very idea in the first place I hope you realize. It is not to push forward the perverse, deeply offensive, and incredibly entitled idea that Man can own an idea or an expression.
  We are supposed to using a system (and changing it if need be) that will encourage people to contribute towards the Public Domain. Simple as that.
  I refuse to use the word theft, because intellectually, I know that it is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it is mostly used out of ignorance, fear, often anger, and a manipulative push to destroy the Public Domain and allow effectively permanent ownership of ideas and expressions.
  In the end I do want people to be rewarded for their contributions simply because it is the most effective way I know to encourage them to contribute.
  So no, I'm not happy about it, I don't want to gloat and act immature about how easy it is to infringe upon copyrights, nor do I wish for people to be abused and not able to make a living.
  I can however use my brain, and understand the difference between theft and copyright infringement, and why it is so important to never let the word theft go unchallenged because it poisons and manipulates the conversation that we really do need to be having.
31. Re:Overreacting by colinrichardday · 2012-07-21 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Evolves, in what way? If I refuse to acknowledge copyright violations as stealing, why am I bound by what others say?
32. Re:Overreacting by gnasher719 · 2012-07-21 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  You are quoting the Hungarian Penal code saying "He who takes a foreign object from another to illegally misappropriate it..." Here it is clear that if taking the object somehow creates a duplicate, so that both the rightful owner and the other person have one, a theft has been committed. Because the "taking" has happened, and the misappropriation has happened. This is different from US law, where "depriving the owner" is what makes it theft. Most likely both laws were written by people who didn't expect the possibility of such duplication, and they would have assumed that both laws would have the same effect, but they don't.
  
  Of course there is the little detail that the Hungarian Penal code talks about "foreign objects". And software is not an object. Electricity is not an object either, and as a result, in the early 20th century the first person in Germany who had the grand idea of using their neighbour's electricity supply without paying got away with it - it didn't meet the definition of theft given by the law. New laws were introduced quickly.
33. Re:Overreacting by greg1104 · 2012-07-21 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Look at the coward, pulling out the living with your parents joke. Man, you are a witty character. The "utopia" I live in is one where people are still willing to pay for support and consulting on their open-source databases, because it's still a cost savings over options like Oracle or SQL Server. Maybe they don't have real companies wherever you and the other trolls live at?
34. Re:Overreacting by garaged · 2012-07-21 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  OMG, do you even realize that most of the fine art was done by poor people that didnt make anything for living and most of the time were living pretty much frm charity ?
  It is perfectly possible to create something and not charge any money, with computer software it is even easier, come on please delete every piece of free/open source software you have on all your devices and come back to keep this discussion.... Actually you will not be able, go figure
  [/rant]
  
  --
  I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
35. Re:Overreacting by tlhIngan · 2012-07-21 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  allowing iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch users to circumvent the payment process and essentially steal in-app content
  Incorrect. Developers who check with Apple for receipts can't be affected by this (because there are shared secrets) and Apple provides a mechanism for verification.
  Developers who don't check, though, are vulnerable to this. And always have - jailbroken users know about IAPCracker which does the exact same thing - faking in-app purchases. (IAPCracker also doesn't pop up a dialog, so you can check to see if its working for the current app by seeing if the regular IAP dialog shows or none shows up).
  Of course, I wonder how long until the first incident of passwords stolen by this method come up - this guy might not store your iTunes username and password (and have access to your credit card or iTunes balance...) but you can bet all those people who pump up apps in the top charts will love to get a hold of this stuff.
36. Re:Overreacting by ThunderBird89 · 2012-07-21 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, both sections were written way before the internet became a reality (the Hungarian one was drafter circa 1970). However, like I said, the word "taking" implies that the rightful owner no longer possesses the "stolen" object, just like the Hungarian version [elvenni] does. That is why I make the point that copyright infringement is not theft as such, not matter what the content industry spokespeople say, and this is why people are tried under a different heading.
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
37. Re:Overreacting by mwvdlee · 2012-07-21 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  If language evolves to undermine the meaning of law, than the correct way of dealing with this reinterpretation of the word "steal" is to change the law accordingly.
  As this has not been done, we should assume the law still implies the original meaning of the word "steal" is it applied when the law was created.
  Actually laws tend to explicitely define what they mean by words, so the whole point is moot.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
38. Re:Overreacting by scot4875 · 2012-07-23 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  The "utopia" I live in is one where people are still willing to pay for support and consulting on their open-source databases, because it's still a cost savings over options like Oracle or SQL Server.
  Unfortunately, that model will not work at all for the types of applications you can get on any App store, so your anecdote is completely pointless for this discussion.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
39. Re:Overreacting by nobodie · 2012-07-23 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  not news,
  I have a student from Vietnam who has jailbroken his iPhone and added an app that lets him download any app for free and run them without any charge. Half the class has iPhones and he is hooking them all up, it'll be all over campus in days when the fall kids arrive.
  
  --
  Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
You are holding it wrong ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-21 03:28 · Score: 1

Ive read some comments on the pages in the links and they seem to say this is not Apples fault but the dev's fault for not using the "3 lines of code" to verify in app purchases. What I want to ask is why this is not the default behavior in iOS.
Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-21 03:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Apple has recommended all along that you verify receipts to make sure they're not fake. Some apps don't, and can be hacked. How surprising.
1. Re:Meh by Netshroud · 2012-07-21 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  This circumvents on-device verification, and some remote-server verification depending on implementation.
ha by seansobes · 2012-07-21 04:16 · Score: 1

Who pays for software anyway?
Patched by mr100percent · 2012-07-21 04:37 · Score: 3, Informative

Apple already explained to developers how to close the hole, with in-App receipts. Also, it's closed in iOS 6
Fuck 'em if they can't take being screwed back by Powercntrl · 2012-07-21 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

With a few rare exceptions, most games with in-app purchases are designed so that your progress in the game is directly proportional to how much you're willing to spend. In several games, no amount of patience or skill will allow you to progress. And in some games, progress itself is an illusion, with no obvious indication that your "missions" are being randomly generated and there is no way to ever "beat" the game.
It's extremely shady on Apple's part to allow developers to label apps that require in-app purchases as "free". The way I see it, this is karma.
I'm all for developers getting paid for their work. If they really want to nickel and dime you for every bell and whistle in the app or make you insert a coin each time you lose a life, that's their prerogative - but Apple needs to make it a lot clearer what you're downloading, since in-app-purchases mean "free" no longer means what it used to.

--

---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
1. Re:Fuck 'em if they can't take being screwed back by Grudge2012 · 2012-07-21 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's extremely shady on Apple's part to allow developers to label apps that require in-app purchases as "free". The way I see it, this is karma.
  I see it as extremely shady by you not to mention that for every free app with IAP they are mentioned with the price. If you don't want to pay for them, don't download apps that have them. It's that easy. Unless you hate Apple.
2. Re:Fuck 'em if they can't take being screwed back by Tom · 2012-07-21 13:04 · Score: 2
  
  It's extremely shady on Apple's part to allow developers to label apps that require in-app purchases as "free". The way I see it, this is karma.
  This. It is high time the App Store is split into 3'categories, with one for really free stuff. If you ask me, I'd even want 4, with one for really, really free stuff as in: No ads, either.
  At least let me, the customer, truthfully know what your business model is. I don't mind paying for software and regularly do. But I dislike the dishonesty in the pseudo-free sector.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
3. Re:Fuck 'em if they can't take being screwed back by bhiestand · 2012-07-22 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  The ones that really piss me off are the gambling games. They have (for now) found a way to bypass gambling regulations, charging for chips and whatnot, while failing to actually reward the winners.
  Can somebody tell me what makes these legal?
  
  --
  SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
4. Re:Fuck 'em if they can't take being screwed back by flabordec · 2012-07-23 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  His point was not that the model of "pay for what you play" was very original, it was that the model shouldn't be called "free to play." It is misleading (and infuriating, at least to me) to get a game that is "free to play" and then realize that you cannot really play it unless you pay. Also, the problem with this model is that most of the times you will get an experience that is clearly broken just to make you spend money with advertisements for in-game stuff every two seconds (an example I have played recently is Dungeon Defenders where, even if you have bought the DLC, you are still shown three ad screens before being allowed to play), in an arcade you have a much better grasp of exactly what you are paying for.
  
  --
  "I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
Proof by Nihn · 2012-07-21 05:30 · Score: 1

What 1 man builds another can destroy. Always.
1. Re:Proof by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-07-21 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  True dat, but it's the measure of the man whether he chooses to destroy or not.
The real news by Grudge2012 · 2012-07-21 05:43 · Score: 1

The real news is of course it took him so long to defeat the exact same system in a more open OS.
Client-side "security" by Myria · 2012-07-21 05:48 · Score: 1

A lot of these in-app purchases have an entirely client-side effect, such as changing how much in-game money you have. As usual, if you control the hardware, you can do whatever you want.
If you have a jailbroken iDevice, you can make a program to change any client-side variable of a game by just calling task_for_pid and vm_write. No need to mess with the purchase receipt system at all.

--
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
No Quarter? by theurge14 · 2012-07-21 08:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Quit your whining, kid! Back in my day we kept pumping more quarters into the machine no matter how many times the game cheated us and we liked it!
Copyright infringement is theft of permission. by kackle · 2012-07-21 09:29 · Score: 1

Copyright infringement is theft of permission. It takes away the copyright holder's ability to control any copying. So yes, it is stealing; not of the "product" per se, but of the holder's right of control. That cat doesn't go back in the bag.
Re:gee, I thought IOS was supposed to be secure by jo_ham · 2012-07-21 13:06 · Score: 1

With all the outspoken Apple fanboys touting how great IOS and OSX are, being Apple apologists for Apple's patent trolling, and mocking Android and linux, how should I react to this situation? How about this: HAHA IN YOUR FACE!
Yeah, IN YOUR FACE Apple because developers were lazy and didn't verify receipts! It's totally Apple's fault that developers didn't use the provided security tools!
Given that we're being so charitable, it's totally Linux's fault if you turn on SSH and set your root password as "password", right? Just checking.
iOS6 by TrueSpeed · 2012-07-21 14:26 · Score: 1

The "World's most advanced mobile operating system"
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-07-25 20:57 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion