Apple's War Against Jailbreaking Now Makes Perfect Sense

An anonymous reader writes "Apple has always been extremely anti jailbreaking, but it might now have a good reason to plug up the exploits. As Hardware 2.0 argues, Apple's new iOS 7 Activation Lock anti-theft mechanism which renders stolen handsets useless (even after wiping) unless the owner's Apple ID is entered relies on having a secure, locked-down OS. Are the days of jailbreaking iOS coming to a close?" I can see a whole new variety of phone-based ransom-ware based on this capability, too.

Comments

Phone-based ransom-ware?

[Sockatume]

timothy, you're going to have to explain how the implimentation of this feature by Apple in any way changes a developer's ability to create ransomware with similar functionality. 'Cause the way I see it, to be able to hijack the Authentication Lock, you're probably going to have to have sufficiently low-level access to just impliment your own lock.

Re:Phone-based ransom-ware?

[Joce640k]

The phone's CPU could have a special PIN number that comes on a scratch card in the box when you buy it.

If your phone gets stolen you call your operator and read them the PIN. They send out a "kill" signal and the phone commits suicide.

This is impossible for hackers to fake - they can never know the PIN.

Re:Phone-based ransom-ware?

[Plumpaquatsch]

The phone's CPU could have a special PIN number that comes on a scratch card in the box when you buy it.

If your phone gets stolen you call your operator and read them the PIN. They send out a "kill" signal and the phone commits suicide.

This is impossible for hackers to fake - they can never know the PIN.

Yeah, they can only send millions of kill messages with random PINs out. No harm done.

Re:Phone-based ransom-ware?

[omnichad]

Whose device again? Money changed hands.

"War against jailbreaking?"

[Anonymous Coward]

How about "war against security exploits that allow malicious users to gain unrestricted access to your phone?"

I guess Linux and Microsoft are both engaged in a 'war against jailbreaking' too, when they close fucking security exploits.

Jesus christ - if you want root on your device, get a device that is built to allow that. Don't bitch that a company closes fucking security holes in its software.

Re:"War against jailbreaking?"

[GameboyRMH]

This. When you want an open device but instead buy a jailed device and jailbreak it, you're voting with your dollars to say "YES, more locked-down toys, I LURV DEM SO GOOD!"

IMEI

[ssam]

Whats wrong with IMEI blacklisting.

Re:IMEI

[Bodero]

Whats wrong with IMEI blacklisting.

Carrier unlocking, and the fact that a locked out iPhone still makes a great iPod Touch.

Re:IMEI

[Plumpaquatsch]

Whats wrong with IMEI blacklisting.

Ask the people who just last month complained that it wasn't enough. Like the NYT, who of course singled out Apple.

time to implement

[blackraven14250]

The summary implies they've had this in the works for multiple iterations of iOS and never did it. I find it highly doubtful they were ready to implement this, but didn't for what, 5 consecutive versions of iOS?

Re:The problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You'd buy a "gray-market" iPhone without seeing that it's on, and operational? Are you that retarded, really? I can only assume that you're retarded, since I can't imagine even the most dim-witted average person forking over good money for an iPhone without verifying that the thing is functional.

What this does is it makes it *mostly pointless* for someone to steal an iPhone, unless (until) someone finds a way to circumvent this activation lock. If it's useless, that scam works a limited number of times, and you're going to have some 'splainin to do to your customers. And you're going to have some angry customers who know who you are and can provide a description to police... "Hey I bought this iPhone advertised on Craigslist, and I have reason to believe it's stolen. I got it from this guy, here's his name and description."

Re:The problem is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to an Apple store, they take it out of the box right there and activate it. Go to an AT&T store, they take it out of the box right there and activate it.

There's no reason to not say "open the shrinkwrap, plug it in, and let's verify that it's ready for activation, and not a brick."

If the person you're buying from suddenly gets all nervous and says "I gotta go man, just gimme the money and take the phone, I ain't got time for that," then there's a pretty fucking good warning that you're getting scammed.

Seriously, you people are fucking dense if you think this will do anything but reduce the number of stolen iPhones.

Re:The problem is...

[Joce640k]

Yeah because no thief has ever put it into another iPhone box and shrink wrapped it and sold it as new before...

If you're buying "new" iPhones from unknown people in gas stations then you deserve what you get IMHO.

not about killswitch, but locking for owner

[dutchwhizzman]

This is *not* about permanently disabling or blacklisting a phone. This is about making the phone unusable for the thief, but keeping it technically sound so the rightful owner could still use it if it has been recovered. It'd be trivial to blacklist an IMEI, just as it would be to circumvent the blacklist by reprogramming the baseband controller. It'd be trivial to implement a "self destruct" on the phone that could be triggered remotely, but then you'd have a phone that would need at least one chip replaced before it'd work again. This is about non-destructive locking and it relies on the OS not being rooted. They may find a way to do that on newer hardware, but as I understand it, all current hardware has been "owned" sufficiently for a software-only compromise to be sufficient.