Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Biggest iPhone Security Risk Could Be Connecting One To a Computer

Posted by timothy on from the seems-an-obvious-hole dept.

angry tapir (1463043) writes Apple has done well to insulate its iOS mobile operating system from many security issues, but a forthcoming demonstration shows it's far from perfect. Next Wednesday at the Usenix Security Symposium in San Diego, researchers with the Georgia Institute of Technology will show how iOS's Achilles' heel is exposed when devices are connected over USB to a computer or have Wi-Fi synching enabled. The beauty of their attack is that it doesn't rely on iOS software vulnerabilities, the customary way that hackers commandeer computers. It simply takes advantage of design issues in iOS, working around Apple's layered protections to accomplish a sinister goal.

9 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. Minor detail glossed over in the headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stopped reading at "Their attack requires the victim's computer to have malware installed".

    If you create a trusted connection between your computer and your iPhone, it's a trusted connection. If you don't trust your computer, you shouldn't use it to make a trusted connection to other devices. It's really just that simple.

    1. Re:Minor detail glossed over in the headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No. The phone should display a notification if an application is side loaded over USB. It shouldn't be possible to install an application without the user's knowledge. Trusting the connection should merely allow the phone and the computer to communicate. It should not allow remote control of the device.

    2. Re:Minor detail glossed over in the headline by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. The phone should display a notification if an application is side loaded over USB. It shouldn't be possible to install an application without the user's knowledge. Trusting the connection should merely allow the phone and the computer to communicate. It should not allow remote control of the device.

      Technically, the application is signed by Apple still. Or it's self-signed using a developer certificate (which only gives you 100 devices once a year - you can freely add devices up to that 100 limit, but after that, you can only change their device IDs once a year.).

      The hack is effectively being able to install a provisioning profile to allow an unsigned app to run. The provisioning profile is signed by Apple, so it's either an enterprise or developer profile.

      At the same time, it works by hijacking the iTunes connection to do so.

      In other words, all that's going ot happen is Apple is going to ask for confirmation to install new provisioning profiles. Doesn't matter when you ask since the profile is required to run the unsigned app - you can ask at the beginning, at the end, in the middle, or when the app is attempted to be run.

      (Provisioning profiles also expire after a certain amount of time - after which the app will NOT run. And the user is free to remove them at any time. None of this is any protection though).

      Though, provisioning profiles are tracable to the original account that had them made, and since they cost $99, that makes the attack far less easy than it appears because if you do this, it's traceable to the person who paid for it.

      Granted, developers have been warned to keep their provisioning certificates safe because a fair bit of malware does target ripping them off.

  2. Developer Access? by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To my knowledge, to utilize an iOS device with developer provisioning profiles, you have to enable the device for development access via XCode.

    Even with an ad-hoc distribution, the device must be listed in the provisioning profile with the exceptions being enterprise and app-store apps.

    Did this attack vector circumvent these protections? Or, was he using iOS devices configured for development and, thus, not a real-world attack?

  3. Re:Pray BlackBerry sticks around by sasparillascott · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not really (at this point), at the recent BlackHat some researchers demonstrated how they could remotely compromise a Blackberry.

    http://www.accuvant.com/about-...

    Another great article that talks a little about that instance with Blackberry and another smartphone platform designed for security as well:

    http://arstechnica.com/securit...

  4. Another "no shit" security "hole" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if you connect you iDevice to a computer, unlock your device, and explicitly tell your device that the computer is trustworthy... The computer is able to install apps and interact with the filesystem on your device! Who would have thought?

  5. Charging-only cable adapters by davidwr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is one reason why charging-only cables or cable adapters which do not carry the "data lines" should be cheap and just as widely-available and widely-marketed as other USB cables.

    Bonus points if they are transparent so the end user can visually verify that the only connected lines are the power and ground lines.

    OBDIYHACK: http://www.instructables.com/i...

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  6. um no by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The IPhones biggest security threat is the US Federal Government.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  7. Droid does what iDon't by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then buy a car of a different make that is less hostile to third-party radios or third-party oil changes.