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

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."

Comments

Overreacting

[mwvdlee]

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!

Re:Overreacting

[Jeremy Erwin]

Unfortunately, the law doesn't evolve. Larceny has different moral implications than tresspass, and the law should reflect that.

Re:Overreacting

[Jeremy Erwin]

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

Re:Overreacting

[ThunderBird89]

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'.

Re:Overreacting

[EdIII]

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.

Re:Overreacting

[EdIII]

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.

Re:Overreacting

[fredprado]

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.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Patched

[mr100percent]

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

[Powercntrl]

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.

No Quarter?

[theurge14]

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!