Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The problem is, as with most anti-theft technology like this, it won't hurt the thieves as much as it will screw-over buyers of used hardware.
This will not cut down on theft as much as it will simply cripple the trust of the secondary market. After all, you can still steal an iPhone, stick it on Craigslist for cash, sell it to some poor sucker and get leave before he charges up the phone and figures out it was stolen and won't work.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
So what, the NSA has the inside track for all jailbreaking.
No good deed goes unpunished.
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.
Whats wrong with IMEI blacklisting.
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?
How about an old fashioned fuse inside the chip? Blow the fuse, job done...
No sig today...
But we do want, insist actually, on root access for devices we own. If you can't log in as root, you don't own the device. Just give me the option to turn on root access using my Apple ID. Closing holes that allow for unauthorized privilege elevation is a good thing. Disallowing authorized use of the full functionality of a device is a bad thing.
Wow...
Would you steal a stereo? Would you steal a purse? Well, if you jailbreak your iPhone, you may as well!
Jailbreaking your iPhone prohibits Apple from protecting the safety of your loved ones. Think of the children.
TERRORISTS!!
Shenanigans!!
Anything to convince law-makers that having control over your own devices is evil.
Bah!
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
When you control the hardware the way Apple does, there is no problem in separating the lock-feature from the main operating system, similar to what happens with a Trusted Platform Module in a Laptop. In fact, one may argue that relying on the operating system to handle this as part of its regular codebase is hopeless, as it means any jailbroken device can also be "unlocked" again.
If they actually wanted to make this secure they would have separated it from the main OS.
Having said that, one can hardly argue against a company working to close known vulnerabilities and security issues within their software, so Apple really should be working hard to close these exploits regardless of the lock-feature.
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
They want to prevent anyone else from starting an app store in competition with theirs.
There is a simple solution to theft - initialize each device with a unique key, and give a copy of that key to the owner. By all means pre-load it with trust for the vendor key as well so that it can auto-update by default, but the master key goes to the user. The key might be a $2 USB drive in a little envelope that says "keep safe and don't open unless you want to modify the OS software - Vendor may not be able to repair devices without this key."
The average user just sticks the key in a drawer and gets the default experience. A user who wants to unlock the device just downloads their alternate firmware installer of choice and it will ask them to insert their key so that it can reflash the phone. Users could also disable the Vendor's keys if they wish. By all means let users generate their own keys and install those on the device as well (obviously this will require the previous key). In the case of business-owned phones the business would procure the phone and keep the key, and thus they can stay in control of the hardware even if they allow employees to use it.
Now users can reflash at will, but if somebody steals the phone they will be unable to do so. It would have minimal cost, and since the defaults are all idiot-proof those who don't care about the feature can ignore it and as long as they don't remove the Vendor key the vendor can still do anything they can do today. However, it would establish that the person who paid for the phone is the one who owns it. Since the key is a tangible object, it can be transferred if the owner wishes to do so, and I'd just make it a read-only simple USB drive so that it could be copied if desired as well - just like a car key.
They already support blacklisting IMEI serials on phones, but the problem being that there is no global IMEI blacklist, so stolen phones get shipped around the world very quickly. This solution from apple allows them to seize this control from the network operators, which is a good and bad thing.
Currently most phone security exists in its baseband. The baseband could easily have a hardware security mode that requires the equivalent of unlocking by the manufacturer to make it work again. Unlocking modern phones is still pretty tricky and is much harder to defeat than the standard OS security, for example, you can root an android phone, but still not unlock the baseband very easily. This whole thing could be standardised across all manufacturers too, yet allow freedom of OS on the device.
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.
I agree it is time to boycott apple for their anti-consumer practices than excusing their behaviour.
Google signed up to Prism long before apple
troll harder
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/new-leak-feds-can-access-anything-in-your-google-facebook-and-more/
I guess Linux and Microsoft are both engaged in a 'war against jailbreaking' too, when they close fucking security exploits.
Closing security exploits isn't a "war against jailbreaking" if there's no "jail", that is, if the operating system's publisher doesn't monopolize distribution of applications. Each GNU/Linux distribution has a central repository of applications, but PC owners are free to add more repositories or to install the compiler at no additional charge. Users are likewise free to add desktop applications whencever obtained for Windows on x86 and x86-64.
Jesus christ - if you want root on your device, get a device that is built to allow that.
What make and model of pocket-size tablet would you recommend for that? Most Android devices smaller than 7" are priced to be subsidized by a 2-year full-price cellular voice and data service commitment.
I'm so sure that after someone steals an iPhone, they'll give it back to the owner once they realize that it can't be used because it's in lockdown mode. In reality, they'll destroy it and/or sell it for parts. It won't be a deterrent either. A thief can't tell the difference between the versions so if it has an Apple logo, it's getting stolen regardless.
it still has resale value.
as parts.
which is how thieves are selling hem.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
So, call me a pessimist but this 'feature' seems to just be a gateway into requiring Apple to approve the resale of any piece of hardware they sell.
Apple is killing the whole second market, and has been for sometime. It has even turned its computers into glorified disposable electronics.
I has more than willing to hail this as part end of Apple...it seemed bad business practice(making a great product is the good business practice), but recent news has seen Apple offering what is essentially part exchange on their(not your) products. It makes sense to me that Apples final goal is to get you to hire the hardware. I would argue Apple is already doing this in America with its phones to great success.
Its great anti-consumer lock-in.
Jailbreaking is a personal choice..Apple, nor any other company should be allowed to tell me what I can do with my purchased hardware. If I want to take a chance by jailbreaking my phone it should be up to me.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Lest we forget:
"Security researchers have discovered that Apple's iPhone keeps track of where you go – and saves every detail of it to a secret file on the device which is then copied to the owner's computer when the two are synchronised."
And would this information have been discovered if we couldn't root the phone and pry amongst its (virtual) innards?
(that was a serious question, I don't know).
If you're selling your phone you'd disable the lock feature, disassociate the phone from your account and sell it. It only hurts those who are selling stolen iPhones, not those who are legitimately reselling the device.
The reason Apple cares so much about jailbreaking has always been about preventing piracy of apps.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
They want control of your hardware, and you are going to let them have it.
And then you'll live in Apple's comfortable little cage, and they'll give you everything you need.
I would take issue with the description of the practice as "anti-consumer," since the bulk of consumers don't give a toss
That is why consumer groups, and governments woldwide are questioning Apples anti-comumer practices(in china for godsakes). Ignoring Apple I am getting increasingly aware of a battle of ecosystems(Microsoft's Term as they don't have a successful mobile strategy they have metro). I see some great looking phone OS's coming out from Ubuntu and Jolla, and the barriers for switching are getting higher.
We have seen this before and even though Microsoft & Intel walk away with 70% Gross Margin, And Apple taking its Obscene Mark-up (I think they get kidneys). Its bad for consumers, bad for competition.
Apple's view towards jailbreaking can likely be summed up thus: Anyone is free to do whatever they want with their devices. Just don't expect support for unsupported things if it breaks. Found a security exploit in the OS? Thanks, we'll fix that right up.
Apple's view towards jailbreaking can likely be summed up thus: Anyone is free to do whatever they want with their devices. Just don't expect support for unsupported things if it breaks. Found a security exploit in the OS? Thanks, we'll fix that right up.
Apples view is your a criminal breaking DMCA http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf
And then you'll live in Apple's comfortable little cage, and they'll give you everything you need.
Except its not like that. They block alternative stores, access to replacement for Apple first party tools, because they want to take your money. Its about starving you of alternatives, and making you dependant on them....Like a Feeder.
Apple was fighting jailbreaking since iOS 1.0 because they knew in iOS 7 they were going to roll out an anti-theft measure.
well that's apple apologists for you.
it was always about control. control of what gets installed and who gets money from it.
the anti theft could just as well be another layer on the system. and should be.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
This blogger does not get it. Big time.
Jailbreaking did not come about for bypassing security or stealing iPhones. It came about because Apple wouldn't sell their GSM-capable phones on vendors other than AT&T, which meant that they also could not be used outside the US, which is the only place the things were being sold. So some Russian hackers came up with a jailbreak, but it wasn't so they could run arbitrary applications, it was so they could run a single application to rewrite the SIM vendor check, disable the carrier lock, and use the damn things on GSM carriers other than AT&T. T-Mobile in the US is one such carrier, and AT&T had demanded, and got, the carrier lock in exchange for letting Apple demand infrastructure changes to AT&T's network for things like "Visual Voice Mail".
The vast majority of these iPhones were legally sold for the full price in the US; Apple put a limit on the number of iPhones you could buy, in order to thwart this thriving export business, because technically, the carrier networks are fairly fragile things, and the phones had not been certified to the carrier networks on which they were being used, or by the regional equivalent of the FCC -- hence they were called "gray market" iPhones in these countries.
The benefit to Apple turned out to be immense, since with tools available for writing *an app* for the unlocking, it was relatively easy to classdump the objC files, and use the other APIs -- and apps were born. Steve actually didn't *want* Apps on the iPhone: he was deathly afraid of building another Newton, and the Apps he gave you were the ones he thought you needed, and no more. He didn't even want there to be ringtones that he and Jon Ivy hadn't approved (a pain in the ass when there are a small number of ringtones, 11,000 employees, and about half of them ate lunch in Cafe Macs in a two hour window).
For six months, many engineers inside Apple, including myself, were jailbreaking our own phones, and using the hacker tools because there *was no* formal API or dev kit. I personally wrote an X Code plugin for making iPhone Apps using the hacker tools, and we passed it around internally at Apple.
A startup was going to make a business of selling an SDK for the iPhone -- Apple _bought them_, and *that's* where Apple got their formal SDK, which they then went through and cleaned up APIs, and partitioned the data you could access from one app to another.
Everything that people jailbreak the things for these days is to get around data partitioning or carrier usage restrictions, i.e. things like using the phone as a WiFi hotspot for a laptop, without paying additional fees or metered rates to the carriers for the greater laptop bandwidth usage capability, or to be able to do the carrier unlock to get around per-region carrier lock-in contracts that Apple had signed.
The bottom line is that Apple could have avoided almost of of the hacking that happened fairly early on by not putting the carrier lock in the baseband firmware, which was a dumbass design decision based on the Samsung baseband chip having the feature implemented already, and having it up in user space in the commcenter program instead.
And their device would be a lot less interesting, and Android might have followed that lead, and been a lot less interesting as well. And Apple wouldn't have made tons of money on Apps because there would be no AppStore.
But as long as there are carrier locks, and more or less absurd carrier restrictions on bandwidth for phones s. hotspots (yes, Sprint, I'm talking to you), there will be jailbreaking. This is a DRM issue, and if jailbreaking is the only way to bypass DRM, then jailbreaking will happen.
Bottom line philosophy lesson: There will always be people who say "These devices are made of atoms. I paid for these atoms. I own them. They will God Damn Well Do What I Tell Them To Do".
Thank you. I see now that Apple is in the clear because of the "but he did it first" rule. That rule didn't work way back when I played in the sandbox but apparently it does work on the internet.
the fact that everything from the new mac pro to the ipad actively resists attempts to load any other operating system than the one its packaged with
Not quite. The new Mac Pro still lets you use Bootcamp to install Windows or you can do a direct EFI install of Windows Vista/7/8 without Bootcamp. You just have to copy the files on the DVD to a GPT partitioned USB drive and the Mac will natively boot the installer.
My guess is not more than 3-4 months. May also be mere weeks. Of course, this prevents the average nil-whit street thief from removing the lock, which may or may not be a good thing. In the worst case, said nil-whit will just have to sell the phones to an underground lock-removal services and consequentially will have to steal more of them to keep previous criminal income rates going. In the best case, this makes iPhone theft economically unattractive, which can still happen even if the lock is broken. If Apple did this right, breaking one lock does not help at all breaking others, and the effort needed is pretty high, like several weeks of CPU time. Cryptography used right can implement things like this. On the other hand, schemes like these have typically turned out to be defective in the past and far easier to break than intended.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
.its so they can bleed every bit of cash from you with their cheap Chinese Foxconn devices.
You do realize WHATEVER you happened to have typed this silly post on ... it HAS FOXCONN components in it ... RIGHT?
You simply can not buy a motherboard without Foxconn parts, let alone assembled in a foxconn factory.
Go ahead, rant rant rant ... Hypocrites are cute. Considering you are aware of apple requiring Foxconn to changes its ways ... but I've never heard of anyone else doing such a thing ... yet ... here you are, posting on the Internet with crap made from some shitty Foxconn factory, you're just too stupid to realize where it came from.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You are retarded.
If its not secure (before or after) then a pre-boot/hypervisor style environment can be created that will let the software think its secure, when its actually already rooted.
The assertion is entirely true in every meaningful way to anyone with a clue. Thats why you don't get it.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
apple should give us run 3rd party apps and no network locking if they want to lock down ios like this.
These two things really are orthogonal. Activation Lock can be done even with jailbreaking. Apple could allow jailbreaking on a properly activated phone. But they won't and we all know that it is NOT for preventing theft. Activation lock can help the theft issue. It can also tighten down the jailbreaking (even though it is a different thing).
St^H^HTim: I'm still not gonna buy your junk ... even less so now.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I disagree with #1 ... unless it's OPTIONAL for the owner.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Think folks won't be able to quickly and easily swap out a fuse? Oh, not personally. But take it to a semi dodgy electronics shop to be "fixed" ?
Lets face it, the original iPhone was all about running "web apps". Crappy bits of HTML running over the web. It is only because people started jailbreaking and writing their own apps that Apple opened up iOS to developers. Without the original jailbreakers Apple would be a lot, lot poorer.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
How does this stop me from stealing a phone, plugging it into my computer and clicking "Wipe this Device" ? As long as their is a user accessible "recovery" feature (ie event of a password loss) I don't see what this prevents? We need IMEI blacklisting from ALL CARRIERS. It's simple, what's the problem? The only thing I can think of is that stolen phones means more sales from handset manufacturers so they just don't really care about theft, if anything it's DRIVING SALES!
He said "inside the chip".
Lest we forget: "Security researchers have discovered that Apple's iPhone keeps track of where you go – and saves every detail of it to a secret file on the device which is then copied to the owner's computer when the two are synchronised."
And would this information have been discovered if we couldn't root the phone and pry amongst its (virtual) innards? (that was a serious question, I don't know).
Yes. Because it was discovered not on the phone but on the backup created on the desktop computer. It's just a file with GPS coordinates. Rooting had nothing to do with finding that file.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
I dunno...
If Little Billy punched you in the mouth you were clear to punch him back.
If you didn't punch him back Little Timmy was clear to punch you in the mouth because he knew you wouldn't do anything.
So, yeah, the "he did it first rule" has kind of always been there. What you should have done is punch them back the first time.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You have obviously never worked with a PROM. Fellow poster is correct.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
The broadcast just need to be signed using a private key. Every handset can hold the public part. If the private key is 2048 bits or longer you can assign the IDs sequentially if you prefer; faking the broadcast will be as hard as it is to break the 2048 bit key - which takes *a lot* of time for 2048 bit keys.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Apple cares far more (as they should) for the people that buy their stuff new (and produce revenue for Apple) than they care for the economic well-being of secondary-market resellers. Which makes total business sense.
Since buyers can purchase from internet-based businesses with no fear via the mighty eBay/PayPal or Credit Card chargeback, the only resellers that will be hurt will be those that were moving stolen equipment and will have their product source dry up. (Or sketchy cash-only sellers on Craigslist... lets just say they weren't that trustworthy of a source to begin with.)
While detering theft is useful for the consumer, how long until this tool is used to lock a device to a specific consumer, eliminating any resale value that the phone may have?
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Because if so, locking it down isn't locked down at all, since it can be unlocked with a simple jailbreak.
And if not, then I fail to see why Apple should be terribly worried about jailbreaking at all if it can permanently lock down a phone... since people who do jailbreak are voluntarily creating a situation where a thief could profit by stealing their phone where they otherwise would not.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
When does Apple say it's for anybody's protection?
It's their fee. Plain and simple.
Apple is a for-profit company, not a charity. They are allowed to profit from charging for whatever they think that people might want, and they are reasonably entitled to charge as much as they believe the market can bear.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Or the police could do their job and arrest people who steal phones. They have a constant stream of evidence when the phone is on, and turn by turn directions to the thief's location. The thieves are being handed to them on a silver platter.
... you can still buy Android phones. Even Samsungs. Go figure.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Apple's logical falacy in this case is called "bifurcation". Deconstruct the argument as: 1) Technological measures to combat theft are good 2) Effective technical measures can only be implemented using a locked down ROM. The bifurcation is the unproved claim that locking down a ROM is the only effective technological measure, when in fact there may be other possibilities.
Moral of the story: be skeptical of any claim Apple makes, particularly when they earnest explain why a user's rights over their own purchased product should be abridged to the benefit of Apple.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
It's important to note that a "war on jailbreaking" is really a "war on exploits."
I don't see how you can be against Apple trying to get rid of every exploit that it knows about. All these jailbreaks are really exploits that could be used to install bad things. You could argue that Apple should provide a way to install alternate firmware, but that's another discussion. (and one that will not get very far, I think)
Jailbreaking is getting pretty tough these days. Even SHSH blobs are not useful, even if one saves activation tickets via Cydia or iFaith.
Jailbreaking is becoming harder and harder. There was only one period of time when it was possible for the iPhone 5, and that time is long gone. Even activation tickets can't be restored (as per Cydia), so if one can't boot the phone into safe mode, one has to DFU restore and kiss the JB goodbye. To boot, known exploits to the top tier Dev Team guys are few and far between... and they have to ration them carefully, only presenting a JB after an OS and hardware release cycle.
This gets old after a while. Things like being able to pull up an app to check which channels are in use via Wi-fi (a great help when setting up an AP) are impossible on iOS.
Android has its warts, but to have complete control of a HTC device from the kernel on up, all it takes is registering for a dev account and getting an unlock code for that phone. Nexus phones are even simpler with "fastboot oem unlock". I prefer iOS's usability, and the fact that app quality seems a notch above Android's, but I much rather have control of the hardware I pay for.
I wouldn't mind if Apple had a compromise, perhaps allowing registered developers to have a way to have a UNIX userland and a root shell, but I doubt that will ever happen.
Actually there is a much simpler way to go about this problem (with theft) which would leave both Apple and the NSA out of the loop.
Every cellphone is equipped with an EMEI number which works similar to a network MAC address. It is a unique hardware identifier for each phone - on a global scale.
The EMEI is visible in the settings/control-panel section of any modern phone, and often also printed on either the box the device is supplied in, or a piece of paper inside. And it is used by every carrier on the planet as a part of the calling infrastructure.
All the carriers would need to do, is to allow a "blacklist" of EMEI numbers, so when your device is stolen you simply report the EMEI to the carrier and they blacklist it. To prevent abuse each device could be supplied with an anti-theft key generated by the initial operator or by the manufacturer (so only the holder of both the EMEI and theft-key can have it blacklisted).
The technical capability to do this already exists. Some operators have even implemented it in trials. Their reasons for not using it today is the fact that not all operators actually want to bust customers with stolen phones, and this system would be kind of pointless if only half the carriers implement it.
Enter regulation. The political system could easily pass a law that forces all carriers to implement this kind of EMEI-based anti theft system. It would take little to design, it would work for every phone on the planet regardless of make/model, and it would include only known technology (just a few bits and pieces to extend the existing EMEI database plus a front-office system to operate it).
Not implementing this is pure laziness (from carriers).
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
These are exactly the questions that need to be asked - or will have to be asked when iOS7 is gold.
I do have a concern that this, while not crippling the 2nd hand market, might force Apple into the gatekeeper of resales - a position that is very powerful and corrupting.
I hope they make it easy to facilitate resales, or I might consider alternatives for my next smartphone.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
You don't want to pay for your device.
I want to pay for a device. But I want to pay for the features of the hardware that I plan to use, not for the features of the hardware that I do not plan to use. The pricing of an unlocked iPhone vs. an iPod touch shows that a device with a cellular radio costs approximately twice as much as a device with no cellular radio. Because I don't plan to use a cellular radio, I don't feel I should have to pay for a cellular radio. But right now, it appears all 4" class devices sold in stores come with either iOS or a cellular radio or both. Why do only three people want no iOS and no cellular radio?
Most Android devices smaller than 7" are priced to be subsidized by a 2-year full-price cellular voice and data service commitment.
Wait, what? And the iPhone isn't?
The iPhone is. The iPod touch isn't.
Google for the unsubsidized price of an iPhone 5 and compare it to the unsubsidized price of a Galaxy S4.
iPhone 5 is to iPod touch as Galaxy S4 is to what?
Or the police could do their job and arrest people who steal phones. They have a constant stream of evidence when the phone is on, and turn by turn directions to the thief's location. The thieves are being handed to them on a silver platter.
Erm...
/.ers are. I know we're not the most socially astute, but this is pretty damn basic.
Thats because thieves dont use the crap they steal. They sell it for cash. The only data that the police can collect is that of the suckers who bought it.
It kind of scares me how naive some
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Oh... were you guys talking?