Slashdot Mirror
Tor Project: Fake Tor App Has Been In Apple's App Store For Months
itwbennett (1594911) writes "For the past several months Tor developers have unsuccessfully been trying to convince Apple to remove from its iOS App Store what they believe to be a fake and potentially malicious Tor Browser application. According to subsequent messages on the bug tracker, a complaint was filed with Apple on Dec. 26 with Apple reportedly responding on Jan. 3 saying it would give a chance to the app's developer to defend it. More than two months later, the Tor Browser app created by a developer named Ronen is available still in the App Store. The issue came into the public spotlight Wednesday when people involved in the Tor Project took to Twitter to make their concerns heard. Apple did not respond to IDG News Service's request for comment."
Apple can burn a book in seconds for showing a little bit of flesh, yet an application may be getting their users tortured in dictatorships and it takes them months to fix.
I think we know who's been working for the NSA and then denying involvement; don't we.
If you're trying to use TOR on an Apple device, you're doing it wrong.
They took about 30 seconds to take down that breast feeding app (a BREAST!!!), but something so utterly evil like an app that promises anonymity and delivers spyware gets to live on for months? Sounds like Apple may have received a National Security letter about this fake Tor app (i.e. leave it alone!) and are playing dumb.
Because it's an iPhone! Apple knows what's best and they even examined the code! Geez..
Do not question the Apple Gods.
"Tor Browser Bundle" is the name of the official secure browser/Tor app distribution. This app was using the name but was not associated with the creators of the real Tor Browser Bundle at all, and apparently contained advertising and spyware which as well as putting users at risk was damaging the reputation of the official bundle. Since it wasn't open source or audited there is no way to really know how well it worked, but the fact that it had advertising suggests that it was not particularly well designed since adverts themselves leak information about the user.
Apple apparently doesn't treat copyright claims from non-commercial entities very seriously, as evidenced by the bug report. It took people using their personal contacts to get things moving in the end. If the people at Apple who review apps before releasing them to the app store were half way competent they would never have allowed it in the first place. They clearly didn't understand that the claims it was making could't really be true (due to the advertising at the very least) and a quick google would have revealed that the name was ripped off.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Trademark/Copyright/Patent law aren't all inherently viewed as bad when implemented and executed properly. However, there are numerous examples (some of which appear on Slashdot) when the holder/government have overstepped the mark. This creates a feeling that the best solution to stop the abuses is to remove the system all-together. Here are some examples of the good/bad dichotomy:
Trademarks protecting an obvious brand-name: OK
Trademarks protecting a vague/generalised name/design: BAD
Patents protecting a clearly novel, non-obvious and very specific invention: OK
Patents on broad general topics and/or obvious incremental improvements: BAD
Copyright protecting a creator from having their clearly original work from being re-distributed commercially for a short time (14 years): OK
Copyright on a few bars of music that appear in the middle of a song from 75 years ago that could easily have been re-created without ever being exposed to the original: BAD