Slashdot Mirror


iPhones Bricked By Setting Date To Jan 1, 1970 (theguardian.com)

lightbox32 writes: Beware of a hoax circling the interwebs, which can be seen by setting your iPhone's date to January 1, 1970. Many people are reporting that doing so will brick the device. It's unclear what exactly causes the issue, but could be related to how iOS stores date and time formats. Jan. 1, 1970 is a value of zero or less than zero, which would make any process that uses a time stamp to fail. Apple is aware of the issue and is looking into it.

170 comments

  1. False headline... by slashkitty · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's recoverable just by letting the battery run out, or disconnecting the battery (harder but faster) Bricking is when you permanently break the device.

    --
    -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    1. Re:False headline... by sexconker · · Score: 0

      How long will it take to drain completely on a full charge for the newest iPhones? Can you keep the screen on while it's in this state, or is it locked into a screen off, not doing anything, and barely touching the battery state?

      Why does a battery pull fix a software issue that a forced reboot (holding power button I presume) can't?

    2. Re:False headline... by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      Probably because you need to drain power to the clock and a hard reset doesn't do that? When the clock resets, it probably goes back to the equivalent of 1/1/1980 that PCs used to default to.

    3. Re:False headline... by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could just remove the battery. Oh. Well, at least it's not soldered on to the motherboard.

    4. Re:False headline... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Go to http://www.apple.com/iphone/co... and search for "Power and Battery" section...

    5. Re:False headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mooooooo! Mooooooo says the battery pulling cow!

    6. Re:False headline... by slashkitty · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's actually attached with a snap clip. Only the original iphone had it soldered on. I've replaced a few iphone batteries.

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    7. Re:False headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better battery capacity vs being able to pull a battery if you make a total jackoff move like setting the date to 1970.... Hmmm.... Which one should I go with?

    8. Re:False headline... by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 1

      For once the moocow AC has this right...

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
    9. Re:False headline... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Probably because you need to drain power to the clock and a hard reset doesn't do that? When the clock resets, it probably goes back to the equivalent of 1/1/1980 that PCs used to default to.

      You are likely correct. You could probably do a factory-defaults Reset; but then you'd have to reconfigure a bunch of stuff or (hopefully) have an iTunes backup to Restore; so letting the battery run down until the clock runs out of juice is probably the least-annoying way to get the clock to Reset to a legal date (assuming you don't have a decent backup).

    10. Re:False headline... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1, Troll

      A faster way to drain the battery is by putting it in the microwave for ~2 minutes on "High".

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    11. Re:False headline... by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      After using petalobe screwdrivers to gently remove the casing. It's not quite as easy as with other phones (and yes, I know, as I too am an iPhone junky).

    12. Re:False headline... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The ones I've replaced are just glued in with rubber cement (comes out with a firm but gentle pull) and only the power connector is clipped in. The power connector comes out with a gentle pull as well.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    13. Re:False headline... by harperska · · Score: 1

      So you get better fuel economy with a Toyota Prius than a Caterpillar backhoe. Congratulations. They are completely different classes of device, so it is thoroughly pointless to compare them in that way.

    14. Re:False headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold it right there. That's over a week? For real?

      Keep your wireless one, I keep my corded one. It can only make calls but it can do so forever without a charge.

      Oh, what's that? You want for it to be mobile? You want for it to be able to text? Yeah, so there is a trade off. Most sane people understand these concepts and don't come off like a fucking retard in a public forum.

      Go get fucked, retarded asshole.

    15. Re: False headline... by HappyDrgn · · Score: 1

      Your reply was solid. A bit vulgar, but on point. Don't hide behind the anonymous coward uid next time.

    16. Re: False headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use to bother logging in but Slashdot became so political and groupthink at one point I just decided to say fuck it and go AC.

      Besides, who cares if I'm an AC? What do you have to gain from me using a login? I know I have nothing to gain by using one.

    17. Re:False headline... by flopsquad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have owned multiple iPhones. I love taking apart electronics and fixing/modifying/resoldering them. Taking apart the iPhone to do anything, even as simple as unhooking the battery, is a special hell I would not recommend for any but the most diehard enthusiasts. (Or a dedicated repair outfit, ofc.)

      First, you'll be fucking around with itty bitty screws that have a significant digit measured in microns. And there are like five (slightly) different kinds of the little bastards. Second, if you don't put everything back in *precisely* the right alignment, you will notice. Maybe Home clicks kinda funny now, or Volume Up is a bit squishy. Third, and maybe this is just observational voodoo, but I swear that manhandling the flexible polymer battery too much degrades battery life.

      tl;dr - If you set your clock to 1970 because some FB chain letter told you Jim Morrison's ghost would bring you good luck, just let the damn thing run down to 0%.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    18. Re:False headline... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Fire up an Arduino that scans the WLAN for Apple OUIs and send them a WOL every five seconds (Project SHITWEASEL), that runs down the battery in no time.

    19. Re:False headline... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      And then your phone bricks itself with an Error 53 for not having the work done by an Apple tech...

    20. Re:False headline... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Probably because you need to drain power to the clock and a hard reset doesn't do that?

      That assumes that Apple don't have a backup power source for the clock in the not-too-unlikely even that the battery runs out of charge. There are digital cameras that will keep time accurately over several months with a completely flat battery, so I'd expect something similar from a phone.

    21. Re:False headline... by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "There are digital cameras that will keep time accurately over several months with a completely flat battery, so I'd expect something similar from a phone."

      But digital cameras usually don't hide a phone within them so they can't have the advantage of sync'ing the time from the network as soon as they boot up.

    22. Re:False headline... by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Funny

      using petalobe screwdrivers

      Yeah, those 10^15 sided screws are a bugger to not strip. That's why I replace mine with pentalobe screws - much more robust.

    23. Re:False headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure it will work? I'm a little bit cautious about being told what to do on the internet (It's why I'm here)

    24. Re:False headline... by doccus · · Score: 1

      Hold it right there. That's over a week? For real?

      Keep your wireless one, I keep my corded one. It can only make calls but it can do so forever without a charge.

      Oh, what's that? You want for it to be mobile? You want for it to be able to text? Yeah, so there is a trade off. Most sane people understand these concepts and don't come off like a fucking retard in a public forum.

      Go get fucked, retarded asshole.

      Yeah he's full of it. The battery in those dunb phones is lucky to last 2 days.. I know because I use them...

    25. Re: False headline... by doccus · · Score: 1

      What? "Positive Karma" doesn't fill your day with love and kisses? ;-) Hyuk....

    26. Re:False headline... by doccus · · Score: 1

      And then your phone bricks itself with an Error 53 for not having the work done by an Apple tech...

      Error 666 , surely... Or is that number specific to Apple desktops?

    27. Re:False headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's recoverable just by letting the battery run out, or disconnecting the battery (harder but faster)
      Bricking is when you permanently break the device.

      I dont think it's working: i Let it tdrain and now i connected it to power it's giving the same old.

    28. Re: False headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck modded this as a troll?!?!

      Oh I get it, the dumbass that tried it.

    29. Re:False headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The primary function is a phone and the old ones do that much better.

      I also don't have to worry about my old phone getting dropped (dropped many times on pavement and not a single problem), getting wet (it's been in the ocean, dried out and worked fine) and all functions work instantly, no loading, no lag.

    30. Re:False headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mobile phone easily lasts a week on a single charge with normal use, which is maybe an hour voice and 20-30 SMS per day. When I had a smartphone, it would last at most a day and half and that was if it was just idling with no usage whatsoever. That's why I went back to my old phone. What good is having a mobile phone if the battery dies so frequently?

    31. Re: False headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I let my battery die. Now what do I do?

    32. Re:False headline... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Third, and maybe this is just observational voodoo, but I swear that manhandling the flexible polymer battery too much degrades battery life.

      I've never knowingly seen an iPhone, so I've no way to know if it's voodoo or not, but it doesn't sound unreasonable to anticipate that handling a flexible device that depends on the area of sheets maintained at a small but necessary spacing would affect the capacity of that device.

      (I probably have seen an iPhone, but as far as I know they look identical to other phones - black slabs - so how would you know you were looking at an xPhone without actually looking for logos. Or having the phone's owner screaming in your face "look at my iWanker toy" ; I tend not to waste my time knowing wankers like that.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    33. Re: False headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you 100% sure cause my cousin did it and he is guttered

    34. Re:False headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once the device dies how do you go about fixing it?

  2. Less than zero is a valid timestamp by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    The thing that bothers me about all of the summaries I've read, is that a timestamp less than zero (which is Jan 1 1970) is still valid - otherwise how would you represent dates before 1970???

    I don't know what is going on but a timestamp being merely "less than zero" seems alone to not be a problem, it's how some other part of the system is dealing with this timestamp. Perhaps someone somewhere in the system frameworks shifted from a timestamp (which is really a double internally in iOS) to some kind of large unsigned int?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by PPH · · Score: 0

      Timestamp? As in a system generated date/time? Why would you ever expect a less than zero value?

      Now, for date calculations; yes. Dates before the O/S epoch must be valid. So the representation of dates must either handle negative values or have some other method of representing dates as far back as 14,000,000,006 years.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by sims+2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My question is why does it even allow you to set the clock back that far? Are they expecting a lot of sales to time travelers that never go back farther than the 1970s? At this point nothing made today should accept a year less than 2000. Idealy the clock would have a hard coded default time of when it was manufactured.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    3. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

      Perhaps someone somewhere in the system frameworks shifted from a timestamp (which is really a double internally in iOS)

      Depends on what you mean by "internally". At the Mach layer, you have what mach_absolute_time() returns, which is a 64-bit unsigned integer in platform-dependent units. Above that in the Mach (osfmk) and BSD (bsd) layers, it's mainly seconds since the Epoch and microseconds since that second, i.e. either struct timeval or other pairings of those values. time_t is signed, but in some of the other pairings, the seconds is unsigned (e.g., clock_sec_t).

      Perhaps in some layered-atop-UN*X userland frameworks it's a double, but not down in the engine room.

    4. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The thing that bothers me about all of the summaries I've read, is that a timestamp less than zero (which is Jan 1 1970) is still valid - otherwise how would you represent dates before 1970???

      Well, according to the man page of time(), if the timestamp is negative, you are supposed to check errno.
      I guess the time is stored there for dates in the 60s and earlier.

      I don't know what is going on [.. ]

      Read about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time

    5. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Funny

      The thing that bothers me about all of the summaries I've read, is that a timestamp less than zero (which is Jan 1 1970) is still valid - otherwise how would you represent dates before 1970???

      You represent dates before 1970 with a negative number.

      It's not the representation that is the problem-- it is letting the iPhone operate with today's date being a negative number.

      The iPhone concludes that you have just time-travelled, and thus bricks itself to enforce the chronology protection protocol.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    6. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Timestamp? As in a system generated date/time? Why would you ever expect a less than zero value?

      Because I"m hardpressed to imagine any advantage in making that assumption. And useless assumptions are bad

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Ever since all OSs went 64-bit, wouldn't that allow all systems to make 1/1/0000 as the starting point in time? And still allow millenia before the clocks would have to reset? Why have it at any date before which there are plenty of people on this planet still alive?

    8. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      If I want to play iNethack, changing the time so that I only play on full moons, I'll need to be able to set the time back multiple years. Or are you some sort of Rogue-like purist who doesn't take advantage of being able to modify the system?

    9. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 4, Funny

      So the representation of dates must either handle negative values or have some other method of representing dates as far back as 14,000,000,006 years.

      Reminds me of this joke:

      Some tourists in the Museum of Natural History are marveling at some dinosaur bones. One of them asks the guard, "Can you tell me how old the dinosaur bones are?"

      The guard replies, "They are 3 million, four years, and six months old."

      "That's an awfully exact number," says the tourist. "How do you know their age so precisely?"

      The guard answers, "Well, the dinosaur bones were three million years old when I started working here, and that was four and a half years ago."

    10. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

    11. Re: Less than zero is a valid timestamp by davidwr · · Score: 1

      Does The Doctor use an iPhone?

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    12. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      as far back as 14,000,000,006 years.

      You got modded down by a Christian fundie.

    13. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Sorry I must have missed something are there not any full moons in the future? My ipad running ios 6.1.3 allows me to set the time to as far in the future as 2038.

      Does the game check to make sure you've not started at the same time or something that you would need more than one full moon?

      Setting the clock back to 1970 does make it rather obvious something's gone terribly wrong though as it breaks https.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    14. Re: Less than zero is a valid timestamp by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      You mean they were fake bones?

    15. Re: Less than zero is a valid timestamp by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Doubtful the iPhone won't accept any time outside of the 1969~2038 range. Then again that might be a function included with Universal Roaming. Either way the doctor strikes me as a android type guy.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    16. Re: Less than zero is a valid timestamp by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 1

      Faked by God.

      I must bookmark the GP post so that I can make a weak joke in August 2020 :)

    17. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because there was no year 0.

    18. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by calque · · Score: 1

      So, 1/1/0001 instead.

    19. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Connect iPhone to iTunes
      Hold Power and Home Button
      Choose Restore
      Choose Restore and Update
      Sit back and relax!

    20. Re:Less than zero is a valid timestamp by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Just adding that the platform-dependent units used by mach_absolute_time are tiny. Nanoseconds on some systems, based on the processor or motherboard clock speed on others. GCD use 64 bit nanoseconds, NSDate uses double precision seconds since some reference date which is _not_ 1970; I think 2001 or something like that. Very easy to use with microsecond resolution for the next +/- 200 years.

  3. Hoax? by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    No problem. You can reset your iPhone to factory default by placing it in a microwave oven on high for 2 minutes. ;-)

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Hoax? by macs4all · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      No problem. You can reset your iPhone to factory default by placing it in a microwave oven on high for 2 minutes. ;-)

      They patched that. That reset method now only works on Android phones.

    2. Re:Hoax? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what is the hoax here? Did TFS mean "bug"?

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    3. Re:Hoax? by MiniMike · · Score: 0

      Not true. An iPhone requires a convection microwave oven, not a standard microwave oven.

    4. Re:Hoax? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Damn, Apple, can't you go for standards just ONCE?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re: Hoax? by davidwr · · Score: 1

      Is it a hoax or is it a not-hoax.

      This is /., everyone here already knows that the answer is yes.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    6. Re:Hoax? by whodunit · · Score: 1

      A microwave oven acts as a faraday cage; causing the phone to boost output signal to find and ping a tower, thus... draining the battery faster!

  4. Obligatory XKCD by Etcetera · · Score: 4, Funny

    https://xkcd.com/376/

    The universe started in 1970. Anyone claiming to be over 38 is lying about their age.

    1. Re: Obligatory XKCD by IgnitusBoyone · · Score: 2

      good luck proving this isn't true.

      --
      Momento Mori
    2. Re: Obligatory XKCD by suutar · · Score: 1

      since it makes no difference whatsoever to my behavior, I shan't bother.

    3. Re: Obligatory XKCD by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Impossible. The universe was created last Thursday with the appearance of coming into existence in 1970.

      good luck proving this isn't true.

      Impossible. The universe was created last Friday with the appearance of {being created last Thursday with the appearance of coming into existence in 1970}.
      Therefore, the universe was not created last Thursday with the appearance of coming into existence in 1970.

      Good luck proving this isn't true.

    4. Re: Obligatory XKCD by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      good luck proving this isn't true.

      It reminds me of something I've argued with creationists.

      Surely God could have created a world with an infinite past? Theres no reason to suppose that the universe had a moment of beginning when God created it.

      Usually their heads explode. Because they want to believe God is that powerful but they also want to believe that the world is 5000 years old.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    5. Re: Obligatory XKCD by bidule · · Score: 1

      Impossible. The universe was created last Friday with the appearance of {being created last Thursday with the appearance of coming into existence in 1970}.
      Therefore, the universe was not created last Thursday with the appearance of coming into existence in 1970.

      Good luck proving this isn't true.

      Sorry, but the universe was just created. I never wrote this post. In fact, you never read it. It's just a memory implanted in your mind.

      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
    6. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it were obligatory you wouldn't have to redundantly point that out you fuckstain.

    7. Re: Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good luck proving this isn't true.

      It reminds me of something I've argued with creationists.

      Surely God could have created a world with an infinite past? Theres no reason to suppose that the universe had a moment of beginning when God created it.

      Usually their heads explode. Because they want to believe God is that powerful but they also want to believe that the world is 5000 years old.

      Very few Christians literally believe that the world is 5000 years old. Many/most are fully capable of believing that the bible is a set of lessons collected from various oral histories meant to teach good life habits. But no, keep bringing out that tired stereotype of the most extreme viewpoint you could possibly find about Christians. Funny how the world will end if you do the same about Muslims, but Christians, they're fair game for bullying and ridicule.
      Also, way to pat yourself on the back about bullying people with different beliefs than yourself. You argue so well, their "heads explode" when you break the news that the world isn't 5000 years old and that God could have created a world with an infinite past? Wow! Such a revelation! No one else on the planet could have come up with that original concept! Amazing!
      Your narcissism has reached such a height that you are completely delusional.

  5. ....why? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    I can understand why one would need to use that date as test data for an application, but why would anyone set their system date to that in the first place? (Not that I'm apologizing for Apple, that's a pretty stupid bug...)

    I'm always curious about how such things come about. Did some kid go "Oh! I know, lets see how far back the iPhone can go! LOL YOLO"

    1. Re:....why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To get a cool easter egg :^)

    2. Re:....why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I'm guessing) following scenario:

      Any program depending on date function crashes, if phone is (accidently, or otherwise) set to 'pre-time' - ie, any date before 1st Jan 1970.
      Further research reveals, 1/1/70 is year zero, ok set date to that? Does program crash?

      Nope, but phone does. Altogether. Interesting.
      (Follow up: What happens you spoof an NTP Timeserver? _ set _everybodies_ iPhone to 1/1/70?

      oh look, its Apple-Free! day today, kids.

    3. Re:....why? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I can understand why one would need to use that date as test data for an application, but why would anyone set their system date to that in the first place? (Not that I'm apologizing for Apple, that's a pretty stupid bug...)

      Even better - why even let the user set the date to a time that far back? If you're going to ask for the current date and time, there should be no reason to be able to set it before the software release date. Maybe set it long in the future, but if you release the software in 2016, there will be no way the current date will be before 2016.

    4. Re:....why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but why would anyone set their system date to that in the first place?

      It's the date I was born, you insensitive clod!

    5. Re:....why? by Longjmp · · Score: 1

      It's kind of an eater egg hoax as someone said.
      According to CBS Sacramento setting the date back is supposed to show some vintage screen(s).

      --
      There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
    6. Re:....why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until you encounter another Y2k-like bug and have a workaround by setting the date back X years to make all the days line up until it is properly fixed.

    7. Re: ....why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beats me... Only time I ever set my clock to a different date was the y2k era to prove it did not matter to the computer... He said I had to watch it roll over to be sure... I did but what is the point if all you have to do is set your clock ahead then back? I see this more like some chain mail... Maybe nobody really believes it so they try it just to prove someone wrong.

    8. Re:....why? by stridebird · · Score: 1

      I'm always curious about how such things come about. Did some kid go "Oh! I know, lets see how far back the iPhone can go! LOL YOLO"

      Over 800 million units sold 2007-2015: That's a lot of monkeys typing....

    9. Re:....why? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Argh, it's times like this that I'm annoyed Slashdot won't let me assign points to an post when I've posted. This totally deserves a +1 funny.

  6. "make ... to fail" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The editor's momma made them to fail at Enlgish.

  7. EPOCH FAIL! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Funny

    nm

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:EPOCH FAIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does nm mean? Nano meters?

    2. Re:EPOCH FAIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nevermind.

  8. Less Than Zero? by ScuxxletButt · · Score: 1

    I love Elvis Costello!

  9. iOS isn't Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't say how it's represented internally, but the iOS "epoch" time isn't 1970, it's 2001 (beginning of the third millennium) according to the doc. If this has anything to do with 1970 being the 0 time, there is a seriously uniformed programmer somewhere at Apple.

    1. Re:iOS isn't Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is a seriously uniformed programmer somewhere

      Stormtrooper?

  10. unix epoch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just remembered from CD classes long time that this is Unix start time. Wonder if this is related

    1. Re:unix epoch by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Just remembered from CD classes long time that this is Unix start time. Wonder if this is related

      CD classes? Is that for cross-dressing? Or compact disks?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re: unix epoch by davidwr · · Score: 1

      Certificate of deposit.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  11. Re:looking back to the time before hymens... by Scottingham · · Score: 0

    -1 word salad

  12. Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't a hoax when you've been tricked. The article clearly states "curious" people allegedly bricked their phones by testing that the bug does indeed brick the phone. I think stupid is a better word than curious.

  13. "It's unclear what exactly causes the issue..." by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    Duh, it's because the first hand-held cell phone didn't exist until 1973. The iPhone believes it has gone back in time, and is trying to prevent damage to the space-time continuum from a sudden intrusion of 21st century tech into the past.

    1. Re:"It's unclear what exactly causes the issue..." by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But Apple never signed the Temporal Convention of 2237. Their CEO Steve21 even laughed at the threat the he'd be confined to the limits of his own mainframe, citing something along the lines of "that's 90% of all virtual space anyway, dorks!"

      Why would they even bother with something like that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:"It's unclear what exactly causes the issue..." by omnichad · · Score: 1

      But Apple never signed the Temporal Convention of 2237.

      Yeah, and Apple was the first to drop the floppy drive too.

  14. I love Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They remind me so frequently that I don't need to make anything good to profit from it.

    An epoch bug... in this day and age... it's like they're trying to be intentionally terrible.

  15. Re:Solution by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    I know "robust against pathological clock-frobbing" was the main factor that drove me to choose Android.

  16. Hrm by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not unusual to see some timestamp issues. It is unusual to see a device crippled so sharply by that. It's VERY unusual for Apple to allow such a range of values- this is the same company that doesn't normally even provide options like "make unread mail appear green instead of blue" or whatever.

    But most disturbing is that this would allow any source the iphone trusts for timestamps to mostly disable the phone. I'm not sure whether the iphone prefers to get data from a trusted NTP server or some part of the 3G standard, or if it supports all of that, but it implies that you could...

    1- (as just some guy) Set up a wifi network that spoofs whatever the trusted NTP server is, and then assign the epoch date that way.
    2- (possibly as some hackery type) Find any way to do the equivalent at a greater level.
    3- (as some radio phreak) Find a way to spoof the epoch date with a bogus 3G transmitter. ...and of course a more sophisticated attacker could probably do more.

    1. Re: Hrm by corychristison · · Score: 2

      1. Open Mobile Phone Repair shop
      2. Setup bogus access point (wifi, gsm)
      3. Poison time sync protocols to connected devices
      4. Profit!

    2. Re: Hrm by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I think your post should be removed as it presents idea that could actually be used for profit which "1.2.3...n. profit!" posts never do.

    3. Re:Hrm by macs4all · · Score: 1

      It's not unusual to see some timestamp issues. It is unusual to see a device crippled so sharply by that. It's VERY unusual for Apple to allow such a range of values- this is the same company that doesn't normally even provide options like "make unread mail appear green instead of blue" or whatever.

      But most disturbing is that this would allow any source the iphone trusts for timestamps to mostly disable the phone. I'm not sure whether the iphone prefers to get data from a trusted NTP server or some part of the 3G standard, or if it supports all of that, but it implies that you could...

      1- (as just some guy) Set up a wifi network that spoofs whatever the trusted NTP server is, and then assign the epoch date that way. 2- (possibly as some hackery type) Find any way to do the equivalent at a greater level. 3- (as some radio phreak) Find a way to spoof the epoch date with a bogus 3G transmitter. ...and of course a more sophisticated attacker could probably do more.

      Actually, I am pretty sure my iPhone uses a time server provided by my wireless carrier. In fact, you have to specifically turn OFF the "Set date and time automatically" (which is the default setting) to do this. Therefore, I could see a bug like this creeping into iOS at some point along the way, and not getting tested properly. Not wonderful; but perhaps understandable.

    4. Re:Hrm by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that 1970-1-1 is not an epoch for iOS.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:Hrm by omnichad · · Score: 2

      uses a time server provided by my wireless carrier.

      Not exactly. From the cell tower connection itself. For GSM to work, all wireless communication must have access to a nearly perfect time source.

    6. Re:Hrm by macs4all · · Score: 1

      uses a time server provided by my wireless carrier.

      Not exactly. From the cell tower connection itself. For GSM to work, all wireless communication must have access to a nearly perfect time source.

      Thanks! I didn't know that.

    7. Re:Hrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Additionally GPS receivers get a very accurate time source from the satellites as a side effect of the position calculations.

    8. Re:Hrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its an iphone.
      the humans are far easier to 'hack'.

      hey if you set the date in your iphone to THIS. you'll see a really cool hidden feature! check it out!

      done.

  17. temporal displacement effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your iPhone went back in time, and experimented with lsd and shrooms. Apple is working on a fix to decrease the iPhone addiction tendencies and/or tolerance to psychedelic drugs.

  18. Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The headline is confusing, is it a hoax or is it true?

  19. I practically guarantee you... by tlambert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I practically guarantee you...

    The problem is with a long or int (32 bit) value having its address passed in for a time_t (64 bit) value.

    As long as the number is positive, it appears to work, but if it goes negative (and given that most of the people setting it to that date are West of GMT, it *will* go negative), then the underflow blows all the adjacent bits in the next 32 bit word over.

    And it appears that something important was there. This will likely be a problem for the code after 19 January 2038, if that's the case.

    This is why there should be strong type enforcement set in the compiler settings, to make sure it doesn't compile if you have this kind of bug in your code.

    This should be a trivial fix, but it's pretty clear that you could fix the problem on your own by temporarily disconnecting the battery and/or letting the battery drain (which would likely take a very long time). So take it into your local Apple store and be done with it.

    1. Re:I practically guarantee you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I practically guarantee you...

      The problem is with a long or int (32 bit) value having its address passed in for a time_t (64 bit) value.

      As long as the number is positive, it appears to work, but if it goes negative (and given that most of the people setting it to that date are West of GMT, it *will* go negative), then the underflow blows all the adjacent bits in the next 32 bit word over.

      And it appears that something important was there. This will likely be a problem for the code after 19 January 2038, if that's the case.

      This is why there should be strong type enforcement set in the compiler settings, to make sure it doesn't compile if you have this kind of bug in your code.

      This should be a trivial fix, but it's pretty clear that you could fix the problem on your own by temporarily disconnecting the battery and/or letting the battery drain (which would likely take a very long time). So take it into your local Apple store and be done with it.

      But I thought all the cool kids say that strong type enforcement is for losers?

    2. Re:I practically guarantee you... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Uh, underflow/rollover wrecks the adjacent memory? What sort of silly language allow that? Rollover usually results in a -1 turning into some gigantic positive value, not that it starting trying to use additional memory in an attempt to store an even smaller value. Similar with a floating point underflow, except that the ALU detects it (and usually puts out zero, although I don't know what an iPhone processor does).

    3. Re:I practically guarantee you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What sort of silly language allow that?
      One that uses two's complement? i.e., all of them.
      The GP is supposing that a negative value results in some bits being set that are otherwise unchanged, not that the memory allocation behaves differently for a negative number.

    4. Re:I practically guarantee you... by obsess5 · · Score: 1

      No. In your scenario, whether the 64-bit time is positive or negative, the called function will attempt to write the full 64 bits back into the 32-bit variable, thus overwriting the following 4 bytes. CPUs don't think to themselves, "Hmm, this is a positive 64-bit value that could fit into 32 bits, so I'll only store 32 bits."

      In reply to one of your replyers (!), there are CPUs (most CPUs?) that detect and signal both floating-point and integer errors in hardware. Unix has broadened the meaning of SIGFPE to include any type of arithmetic error, but do any current OSes actually raise exceptions for integer errors? (A quick check on an x86_64 Linux showed integer overflow not being reported, but integer divide-by-zero causing a SIGFPE.)

    5. Re:I practically guarantee you... by tlambert · · Score: 1

      No. In your scenario, whether the 64-bit time is positive or negative, the called function will attempt to write the full 64 bits back into the 32-bit variable, thus overwriting the following 4 bytes. CPUs don't think to themselves, "Hmm, this is a positive 64-bit value that could fit into 32 bits, so I'll only store 32 bits."

      This is inaccurate. The value is being passed by address to a a function that increments it or decrements it as a result of a "settings wheel". So it's basically doing math on the value passed by address.

      Unless the math messes with something outside the low order 32 bits, it really doesn't matter what the increment or decrement does to them, it won't dick with the other 32 bits which aren't where they are expected to be.

      As a bonus: This likely is not a problem on 32 bit hardware; you should try it on a non-64 bit Apple device and see if it causes problems there, too. My bet is that it will not.

  20. It Is True! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just tried it with my one and only iPhone and it locked up just as the article said it would.

    Oh wait...

  21. Alright, I'll bite by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Funny

    Okay guys, calm down. Assuming iOS is really based on OS X, I'll test something on my Mac right this instant.

    Setting the clock to january first 1970 right noW. I DO NOT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE.

    OH WAIT, ALL THE COLOURS ARE GONE. IN FACT I THINK THE RESOLUTION IS WAY DOWN AND I'M ONLY SEEING PURE BLACK AND WHITE PIXELS.

    1. Re:Alright, I'll bite by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Oh this is very easy to explain: it's because the first color Macintosh didn't come out until 1985, and all Macs before that had 512x384 screens.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Alright, I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure you see pixels? Most of the graphics terminals (CRTs) back then had round storage tube displays that were only readable in a dark room.

    3. Re:Alright, I'll bite by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Okay guys, calm down. Assuming iOS is really based on OS X, I'll test something on my Mac right this instant.

      Setting the clock to january first 1970 right noW. I DO NOT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE.

      OH WAIT, ALL THE COLOURS ARE GONE. IN FACT I THINK THE RESOLUTION IS WAY DOWN AND I'M ONLY SEEING PURE BLACK AND WHITE PIXELS.

      Are you sure? Actually, it should have looked similar to this.

    4. Re:Alright, I'll bite by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Same thing, only the screen hardware just has more than green phosphor to light up. If you light up the whole screen, you get white.

    5. Re:Alright, I'll bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should be green on black. B&W is for TVs, not monochrome monitors from the 70s.

  22. Bullshit headline, it doesn't work. by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Its also bullshit on iOS 9.2.1.

    I just set it to exactly midnight EPOCH, I set it to before epoch and I set it back to now. Rebooted multiple times all along the way.

    My phone works fine.

    I got kicked out of anything authenticated the instant I did the change since doing so effectively renders every certificate on the device invalid as it is suddenly years before the certs were 'issued' but thats exactly as expected.

    I pretty much can't find any truth in the story. It claims you can't scroll back that far in the date/time picker without open and closing multiple times, yet here I am with just a bunch of finger flicks looking at the date/time as Dec 1969 right this very moment and I did so without having to enter it multiple times.

    Dear slashdot, you have been trolled. Please stop believing the random shit you read on the internet.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Bullshit headline, it doesn't work. by samkass · · Score: 1

      I've read that you also need to change the time zone to something that would bring it to the next earlier day after setting it to the earliest possible date (presumably causing it to subtract a few hours and underflow the value.) Dunno. I'm not dumb enough to try it.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    2. Re: Bullshit headline, it doesn't work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free Apple advertising

    3. Re:Bullshit headline, it doesn't work. by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Its also bullshit on iOS 9.2.1.

      That's the clever thing about the story; nobody will be willing to check it.

      On the other hand, it has been reported that the problem isn't setting the time to Midnight Jan 1st 1970. The problem is setting that time for example in the USA, because in the USA you set the time to some hours _earlier_ in UTC. And these reports say that the problem fixes itself when the time goes into positive time UTC (in Los Angeles you might have to wait nine hours). And _I_ am not going to check if this is true.

    4. Re: Bullshit headline, it doesn't work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My daughter has just done this to her phone because some idiot is circulating a story about this cool retro theme you can access by doing it. Now I'm sitting here, pissed, trying to find a fix. So yeah, it works...

  23. So it's only a brick for several days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, over the span of 2 days, it's not recoverable without opening up the device and removing hardware ... That, sir, is pretty damn close to being a brick.

    1. Re:So it's only a brick for several days by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it isn't.

      A) because it doesn't actually break in the first place
      B) Brick means unrecoverable, recovery here is trivial if it were to work as the story goes.

      C) You've been trolled, the phone doesn't actually brick in the first place, worst you bought into something this silly.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:So it's only a brick for several days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, just totally on standby, I've seen a 3 year old iPhone5 last over 4 days. I can't say how long the battery will last in this case as I'm not dumb enough to set such a date but there you have it.

    3. Re: So it's only a brick for several days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I did this and now can't access my phone. This is a real issue.

    4. Re: So it's only a brick for several days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you win dumbass of the year award.

    5. Re: So it's only a brick for several days by vilanye · · Score: 1

      You knew what would happen but did it anyway?

      It is not a real issue. If the phone set the date itself to that, then it would be a real issue.

  24. Goes to show by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    This demonstrates why the Windows Phone is clearly a superior platform.

    In order to brick that, you would have to set its date all the way back to January 1, 1601. That allows the user to live in many more interesting historical eras.

  25. Statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using older versions of browsers with infected sources of information may help to find exploits of newest browsers.

    Well, make an encryption algorithm that depends on time, make the statistics to know what would happen before the 80's... And here we have a lack of limitation to make anyone (in this case nobody is) who lives in the 70's.

    New EPOC? Anyone? (please don't...)

  26. conspiracy by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    This is just Apple's way of forcing users to upgrade their phones before Jan 1 1970 rolls around.

  27. Doctor is hurts when I do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there was ever a situation that called for a, "Then don't do that." response this is it.

    Outside of software quality testing, a valid reason to lie to your computer about the current time, doesn't come to me.

    I know! I'll set the date to next week and run the Stock Ticker app. Profit!

  28. Like I said... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Well, according to the man page of time(), if the timestamp is negative

    Like I said - it can be negative.

    Read about it here

    Yes I already know that hence pointing out it can be negative.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  29. Why would you want to manually set the date/time? by swb · · Score: 1

    At least on a PHONE? The cellular network provides a very high quality time signal to begin with, probably better than the internal clock can deliver. AFAIK it's also the iPhone default.

    The only reason I can see why you would want to would be to lock the time zone to a specific one different from the one you're in (iPhone seems to set the timezone either via GPS or from the cell network). OK, maybe this is someone's preference, but every time I have done something similar out of my timezone it always fucks me up to be out of sync with local time.

    And why on earth would you want to be on a different date?

  30. Devices should be de-brickable by davidwr · · Score: 1

    I've said it again and again, consumer devices should be de-brickable.

    Business devices too for that matter.

    They should all have a "factory reset jumper" or similar that resets the machine - or at least the non-replaceable parts of the machine - to factory conditions.

    I can think of three exceptions to this rule:
    * Things that must not be wiped due to legal reasons or fraud-prevention reasons, like a hard drive's in-use-hours, should not be wiped,
    * Certain "write once" storage, such a log of reported thefts, should not be wiped, and
    * if the consumer explicitly shoulds a different jumper, the ability to do a factory reset is permanently lost, rendering the device "brickable." Some users may want their devices to wipe their secuity keys and brick themselves if they are reported stolen or after too many unsuccessful logins in a row as a way to discourage theft.

    On an iPhone, this might mean booting from a "restore" boot loader that would wipe the real boot loader, storage, ram, security, and everything else not "burned in" as "read only" at the factory or which wan't on the "no wipe" list such as a carrier-lock or powered-on-hour then set variables like the clock to sane albeit incorrect factory-default values. It would also preserve things normally "off limits" or "read only" to the bootloader and iOS for legal reasons (such as radio hardware). Then it would restore the regular bootloader and Apple security credentials from ROM and copy a temporary "iOS-restore" mini-operating system from ROM into storage and reboot. On the next boot, the special "iOS restore" OS would tell the user to either plug the USB cable into a PC running iTunes or to connect to the internet using USB, WiFi, or Bluetooth then it would load the real iOS from iTunes or an Apple internet server, then, after verifying the iOS was properly signed, set it so it would boot from the just-downloaded iOS and reboot. Sure, it would take awhile, and yes, all user data would be lost, but at least the phone would be usable.

    On a PC with non-soldered RAM and disk or SSD storage, those devices would not need to be wiped as part of the machine's de-bricking routine - if those parts are contributing to the problem, the consumer can replace them.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Devices should be de-brickable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Things that must not be wiped due to legal reasons or fraud-prevention reasons, like a hard drive's in-use-hours, should not be wiped,.

      Those still showup on a mechanically dead hard drive, they're probably part of the firmware, so a low level format will never delete them.

      * if the consumer explicitly shoulds a different jumper, the ability to do a factory reset is permanently lost, rendering the device "brickable." Some users may want their devices to wipe their secuity keys and brick themselves if they are reported stolen or after too many unsuccessful logins in a row as a way to discourage theft.

      See the iPhone bricking on hardware replacement from few days ago.
      Or deleting the recovery partition on laptops.

    2. Re:Devices should be de-brickable by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, that's all very clever of you, except for the fact that iPhones do have that. You can reset the firmware, or all the internal storage, from a plugged-in computer. Almost every single byte of internal flash can be rewritten by Apple, or, hell, by an end user with iTunes. (I think the only parts that can't be overwritten are the parts that allow the phone to enter recovery.)

      These 'bricked' phones? They enter recovery mode just fine, and all their internal memory can be rewritten just fine. Everything works fine there.

      The problem here is that the current time, of course, is not part of a system recovery, because the damn current time is not saved to the phone's flash memory. How would that even work?

      The clock in an iPhone operates the same way the clock in a PC operates, in a separate very low-power clock-tracking chip that runs off a battery. (Which in this case is the device battery.) There is absolutely no way to alter this from outside the device, and, really, no device has even needed such an ability before. iOS just has a really stupid bug.

      And the way the iPhone is designed does not allow easy removal of the battery, which, really, is the problem here. If Android had this problem, it would be laughed off, 'Just unplug the battery, that will fix it'. But you can't do that with an iPhone.

      I suspect that, within days, Apple will have produced a iOS update that can be put on the device (Even after it has been 'bricked'.) that either checks the time and fixes it, or just doesn't have whatever bug is causing this in the first place. (In fact, it should be possible to put a tiny image on there whose sole purpose is to change the clock, and then put the *original* image back.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    3. Re:Devices should be de-brickable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, just remove the battery in those new Samsung and Nexus phones...

  31. Re: "It's unclear what exactly causes the issue... by davidwr · · Score: 1

    They will have gotten around to signing it one of these epochs, eventually. Maybe on January 1, 1970.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  32. Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia iPhone kills you!

  33. What part is the hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Set your phones back to 1970 and they brick"
     
    :sets phone back:
     
    :phone bricks:
     
      scene

    Hoax would imply that people are telling you that you can win Angry Birds by setting it back to 1970 or something. While this is an issue I'm confused by the "hoax" element?

  34. Well, I knew they were Piles of .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will I knew Apple crap fones were just that Crap, and phony in every degree of the presentation.. Big example "siri"

    moving past that,

    This announcement just fortifies my statement to another degree..

    Perhaps it was because Jobs was such a bully, they managed to miss this right as he pushed to "greater things" Like "siri"

    snicker..

  35. If it's a hoax, then it won't brick your device. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it bricks your device, then it's real, not a hoax.

  36. event firm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maker Communication is one of the most popular event management firm in Bangladesh. Maker is basically organized IT related event & fair.(http://www.makercommunication.com/)

  37. Why would you do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still trying to figure out why you would set your phone to this date to begin with? Kind of like the Y2K thing I guess, I'm sure its fixable and over hyped as a real issue.
    Definitely a trend in Apple news of negative stories of late. From iPhone 6's bricking, to Apple's stock demise from lack of real innovation. Almost every successful company falls from grace eventually.

  38. Magical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time traveling iPhones.

  39. Fix for the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simply disconnect your battery for 15 minutes and then you'll be able to restore your iPhone.

  40. DFU Restore will fix it by pdclarry · · Score: 1

    The medium is the message

  41. I'm glad I avoid Apple Devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have always been prejudiced against Apple, and now I'm seeing why.

    I don't want to own an iBrick.

  42. UNIX HAS A PROBLEM IN 2038 - John Titor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UNIX HAS A PROBLEM IN 2038 - John Titor http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

  43. Something interesting to note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen iPhones stuck at the "locked out, try again in 24758383 minutes" or something to that effect a lot.

    Doing the calculation, you find that counting backwards from the present date (at the time of lock-out message), you find that the wait time posted counts back to December 31st, 1969.

    Same thing happens when you disconnect the battery. The device sets the time to December 31st, 1969, which I think might be the earliest date the device has a value for.

    Apparently January 1st, 1970 was just an overall shitty day.

  44. Trying to fix my iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I let my iPhone die and when I hold in the lock button it shows the battery dead and the plug in cord does that mean completely dead do I plug it in and try and restart it..?? And yes I'm an idiot and actually tried it before reading any forums on it

  45. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sell your bricked piece of shit and buy an Android phone, which does not have this problem.

    Solved.

    Yeah, you will have to set your Android to UNIX end-of-times so it will crash. https://www.reddit.com/r/Andro...