Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Locked iPhones Can Be Unlocked Without Password

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the now-lookie-hyeah dept.

Security 102

snydeq writes "Private information stored in Apple's iPhone and protected by a lock code can be accessed by anyone with just a few button presses. Pressing the emergency call button at the unlock screen, followed by two taps on the home button, takes you to the iPhone's private 'favorites' page without the need to enter the unlock code, MacRumors user greenmymac has found. If the owner of the phone has favorite entries in their address book containing URLs, e-mail addresses or mobile phone numbers, then those entries can be used to launch the browser, mail application or SMS software, and gain access to private Web favorites, e-mail messages, and text messages stored in the phone, again without entering the unlock code."

cancel ×

102 comments

CALL OUT THE DOGS (4, Funny)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#24765737)

Quick, to the Apple-bashing-mobile

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24765797)

It's just down from the Microsoft-bashing mobile and next to the Comcast-bashing mobile. They all look similar, so make sure you have the right keys, oh and replace the memes if you use them all. Gotta keep a fresh supply.

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24766123)

The Comcast-bashing mobile is also known as "Earth" (or at least "The United States").

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24766611)

There's a difference between Earth and the United States???!!!!1111ONEONEONELIMX->0(SIN(X)/X)

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24776437)

typical american anonymous coward

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24769875)

They all look similar, so make sure you have the right keys

Also, make sure to change the keys [slashdot.org] if there's the slightest chance they've been compromised!

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (3, Funny)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 5 years ago | (#24765987)

Quick, to the Apple-bashing-mobile

It's called the Applesauce-mobile, thank you.

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (2, Funny)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766333)

Quick, to the Apple-bashing-mobile

Holy annoyed fanbois, Batman!

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (4, Funny)

BasharTeg (71923) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766509)

There's no need to fear! Apple Apologist Squad to the rescue!

Quick, spin that security vulnerability into a feature! Now, follow up by making excuses for ridiculously overpriced hardware! Finish them off by implying that 6.5% PC market share growing to 7.2% PC market share is the new "Apple Revolution"!

We've done it! Truths about the downsides to Apple products have been dismissed and discredited, and the comfort provided by our elitism can continue for years to come. Well done Apple Apologist Squad!

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (1, Funny)

Silicon Jedi (878120) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766691)

Look at the basher trying to disguise his lack of original thought!

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (4, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766985)

And the apologist proudly demonstrating he's no different.

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24767377)

Actually "Bashar" is a rank equivalent to a 5 star flag rank.

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24770791)

I think he was talking about Julian Bashar from DS9.

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (1)

AgentSmith (69695) | more than 5 years ago | (#24778499)

Or it could have been Bashar Miles Teg.

In other news. *YAWN* A security fault is detected. Film at 11.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

what do you want? (0, Flamebait)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 5 years ago | (#24779067)

Given how repetitive and unoriginal Apple's marketing message, their fanboys, and their shills are, of course people rejecting that message need to be repetitive as well.

Re:CALL OUT THE DOGS (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 5 years ago | (#24772639)

I'll bet this vulnerability has a nicer UI than most core Windows Mobile apps :)

j/k, Apple suck.

This just in (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24765799)

Physical access to hardware means that software-level security can be bypassed!

Re:This just in (4, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766265)

funny because thats not the case in normal phones. 3 pins wrong and your out, sure you might be able to get round it if you were a gang of phone thieves but with the iphone anybody can get round it and they dont even need your phone for that long

Re:This just in (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#24768145)

Given sufficient knowledge and time, physical access does indeed mean a complete lack of security. Any phone can be rebooted, JTAG accessed, or have the complete firmware and user memory copied off the hardware.

What's startling here is how quickly and easily the access is, and that it's only access to the actual user interface that's required.

Re:This just in (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 5 years ago | (#24772323)

Given sufficient [...] time

That's the problem with devices built from the ground up without security in mind versus those that are. With the latter, it is unlikely that there is such a thing as "sufficient time" during any point of the device's useable lifespan.

Re:This just in (2, Insightful)

miratrix (601203) | more than 5 years ago | (#24768195)

Obviously you've never had a BlackBerry, where 10 wrong login attempts will cause the device to wipe itself out. And all memory contents are - afiak - encrypted even if you manage to take the damned thing apart and connect directly to the flash chips.

Reading out "secure" blackberry data... (3, Insightful)

tlambert (566799) | more than 5 years ago | (#24769469)

Reading out "secure" blackberry data...

What's the model number? From that I can tell you whether or not I have a JTAG, or would have to borrow one from a friend. With a JTAG I can keep it from wiping itself and do anything with your data I want.

If it's an 8000 series (not including the 8707), then it's a ARMv5TE PXA900, which is pretty easy to hack.

Just because your average idiot can't hack something doesn't mean that it's magically unhackable. The value in the device is in the data it contains, not in the cost of the hardware.

-- Terry

Re:This just in (2, Interesting)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#24769437)

haha. Yeah, but usually not with your pinky finger... in 1.2 seconds.

woot!

Good local security is not impenetrable, but should require discernible effort. For example, if I have full-disk encryption, it takes an absurd level of effort to read the contents of my drive.

If I have an iPhone, it requires my pinky finger and 1.2 seconds.

AppleSauce!

Not quite... (4, Informative)

daybot (911557) | more than 5 years ago | (#24765805)

Pressing the emergency call button at the unlock screen, followed by two taps on the home button, takes you to the iPhone's private 'favorites' page without the need to enter the unlock code

Not quite - it takes you to Favorites or iPod depending on your double-tap shortcut setting. If it's set to the home screen then you are just prompted for the passcode. See here [macrumors.com]

Re:Not quite... (2, Interesting)

tgd (2822) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766021)

And on top of that, mine IS set to Favorites and double clicking while locked goes to the iPod controls anyway. When unlocked it goes to Favorites.

Re:Not quite... (4, Informative)

Charles Dodgeson (248492) | more than 5 years ago | (#24767327)

I do see the behavior described: Emergency call, then double press takes me to my phone "Favorites". From the favorites, I can look up the details of of those address book entries and bring up Safari or Mail.

From Safari opened this way, I can get to my bookmarks. And I suspect that from Mail (haven't tested it yet), I could get to all of my contacts. All of this with completely by-passing the PIN.

Just tested... (5, Informative)

Elindor (84810) | more than 5 years ago | (#24765841)

There's a way to prevent this - set the Home Button to go to Home when double clicked - this simply drops it back to the PIN request (Or, if it's in iPod mode, bring up the basic iPod controls)

not really surprising (0, Troll)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 5 years ago | (#24765845)

I support the Iphone and blackberries, as I say to everyone, "if you want a fun toy, get an Iphone, if you want something secure and a good office tool, get a blackberry." I mean are we really surprised that a device designed for kids with too much money isn't secure?

Re:not really surprising (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24766143)

I mean are we really surprised that a device designed for FAGSwith too much money isn't secure?

There, fixed that for 'ya!

Re:not really surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24820291)

oi, I am an apple fag, you insensitive clod!
(sadly no iPhone yet though... )

Re:not really surprising (1)

Ron_Fitzgerald (1101005) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766201)

Can I assume whoever modded this a 'troll' owns an Apple product of some sort and took personal insult rather than modding unbiased?

Re:not really surprising (4, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766557)

If I had mod points I probably would have modded it 'Troll' as well. Not because I somehow love Apple products or own an iPhone and feel that need to justify my purchase but because the language in the post makes it seem as though the iPhone is only a kid's toy. Swap iPhone and Blackberry around and it's still a Troll, but he's just trolling a different audience. He could have made the exact same point by changing his wording and suggesting that this is a reason why he would not recommend using the iPhone in a business setting. Same message, but the language isn't anywhere near as inflammatory.

Can I assume whoever modded the comment 'insightful' has something against Apple and decided to take a shot at them rather than modding unbiased?

Re:not really surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24767241)

Yes, but have you looked at the bulk of the advertising produced by the two vendors? They appear to support the GGP's conclusion.

Re:not really surprising (2, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 5 years ago | (#24767931)

Swap iPhone and Blackberry around and it's still a Troll, but he's just trolling a different audience.

... except, the way he said it, it is true.

When you turn it around, the way you say it, it is trolling.

Re:not really surprising (3, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 5 years ago | (#24768747)

My goodness the trolls are out in force today. Hopefully the meta-moderation fixes trolls with mod points, but nothing is perfect.

The original claim essentially says that the iPhone is only for rich kids who have too much money on their hands and isn't good for business use at all. If you have an opinion, that's perfectly fine, but expressing it in such an inflamatory manner generally isn't; or at least it's frowned upon in polite, formal discussion.

At least it's not surprising coming from your user name.

Re:not really surprising (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 5 years ago | (#24768775)

Well, my user name *is* a troll.. but only if you're an enemy fanboy.

If that is the case, I don't even have to post any text. I just post 'nt', and if they have a proper fanboy name, they can respond 'nt'.

It saves a lot of time when arguing.

Re:not really surprising (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 5 years ago | (#24774691)

The user name isn't really a troll. You can be a whatever-you-want fanboy and no one will really care. Go ahead and post how much you like whatever-you-want products, services, etc. and no one will care. You might get called a shill, but there's no '-1 shill' moderation option yet so at most you'll just get glanced over.

Then you basically had to agree with some piece of crap flame designed to provoke people. I only noticed your user name after I read what you wrote and it made a certain amount of sense. If you were some hardcore PC/Sony/whatever fanboy that might suggest some hatred towards Apple, Linux, Microsoft (They're part of what's generally considered a PC, but they also make the Xbox which competes against Sony so how does that work out?), or something else that's generally associated as an opponent towards PCs.

The name isn't a troll. If you were named 'PCs and Sony suck' I'd probably consider it a trollish name, but your user name isn't a troll, no matter what anyone thinks. Anyone who thinks it is a troll is probably as narrow minded as... you. Yes that's flamebait, but I really don't care.

Re:not really surprising (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 5 years ago | (#24775649)

... get a sense of humour, or go back to your hug box ;)

(you can't possibly think I was being serious, even if you didn't find it funny...)

Re:not really surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24781051)

My goodness the trolls are out in force today.

As are the mac fanboys, it would seem.

Re:not really surprising (4, Funny)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766619)

My guess too. Mac zealots are a strange tribe, if you tell them apple cant do something they get really bent out of shape. And just because I feel like burning more Karma listen up Mac fan boys: Steve Jobs cannot walk on water, he's just a mortal man.

Re:not really surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24766747)

So this post is alright to mod as troll, though? Seeing how it's, well, trolling. Regardless of whether the point of the original post stands.

Re:not really surprising (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24766951)

No, he's just putting out a fire by using the time-honored "Gasoline Method".

Re:not really surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24767131)

The gasoline method works well when the fire isn't really big yet.

And even when it is really big, you just need lots more gasoline.

BTW, if someone doubts me, throw a lit match into a coffee can half full of gasoline. I mean throw it like your throwing a baseball. The vapors burn, not the liquid gas so if it hits the liquid sooner then the time it takes to ignite the vapors, it is go out.

Also, look at a fire line for a forest fire, they cause a second fire that is controlled so that when the out of control fire pushed to that point it runs out of fuel.

Re:not really surprising (3, Funny)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 5 years ago | (#24767961)

As you say, gasoline only burns when there is oxygen to help with the combustion. This is true for most of the real world. But if you were inside the reality distortion field, you might find that gasoline does NOT burn. I'm not sure. You'll have to ask an apple fanboy.

Re:not really surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24772377)

This is proof that Sony > Apple!!

Apple's reality distortion fields are causing an energy crisis by making gasoline an inert substance - but not Sony. Inside a Sony VAIOfield(tm), the flash point of _everything_ is reduced to 0.5degC above room temperature.

Re:not really surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24822515)

But he throws a monitor downstairs whereas Ballmer can only manage a puny chair!

Re:not really surprising (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 5 years ago | (#24772707)

For all you know, someone identifying with the term 'FAG' took offence at the implication that they might own an Apple product :D

Re:not really surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24770321)

The iphone does not support encryption, or other heavy security.

A Blackberry encrypts everything in its RAM and memory card with AES-256.
A Windows Mobile device encrypts the memory card with AES-128, and if the wrong pin is typed in more than a selected amount of times, the device can erase itself completely, so brute force password guessing is not an option.

iPhones have neither encryption nor self-destruct capability should the device fall into the wrong hands.

This doesn't sound like much, but for corporate officers, this may mean the difference between internal critical stuff (memos about an impending merger) being divulged or not.

This is also important if a company wants to comply with Sarbanes Oxley or HIPAA. Using a device which is designed for security like a Blackberry or a Windows Mobile phone is considered due diligence. iPhones can mean prison time because they have no certifications, nor adhere to any security standards.

Like previous posters say. iPhones are great toys, but really are not usable in corporate environments.

Well done. (1)

Rayeth (1335201) | more than 5 years ago | (#24765853)

I can see why an emergency call button is necessary, but why did they change the functionality of it? To my knowledge it was working fine (permitting 911/etc only) in previous generations.

Back door anyone? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24765901)

This is nothing more than a nice backdoor left in there by apple so that they have constant access to your phone.

Re:Back door anyone? (4, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#24765947)

This is nothing more than a nice backdoor left in there by apple so that they have constant access to your phone.

Yes, because when Apple wants to access my iPhone, they're going to come to my house, pick up the phone, and start pushing buttons....

Re:Back door anyone? (4, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766053)

Doesn't sound impossible to me, considering how many /.er's buttons Apple manages to push remotely.

yeah! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24765921)

Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by FRIST PS0T!

The easier and more complete way (4, Informative)

Brilthor (754604) | more than 5 years ago | (#24765937)

Actually all you need to do is call the iphone, then when the call ends you are back at the home screen unrestricted. On a slightly unrelated note most security articles seem to point out the obvious flaws instead of the clever ones (clearly the iphone lock function is only a slight deterrent)

Re:The easier and more complete way (2, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766001)

clearly the iphone lock function is only a slight deterrent

Exactly, I think everyone at Slashdot knows that if someone has physical access to your hardware, you've already lost the security game.

Re:The easier and more complete way (3, Informative)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766253)

Actually the security lock works pretty reliable on just about any Nokia phone I ever owned.

Sure, you could factory reset it, but, alas, that requires access to the keyboard, which is locked.

You can call the phone and accept calls while locked, but that's it. After the call it goes back into locked mode.

I'm not claiming it's 100% unhackable. Maybe you could flash the firmware (I wouldn't know). But in any case the security is not quite as innane as what Apple has implemented.

Re:The easier and more complete way (2, Interesting)

Bonkers54 (416354) | more than 5 years ago | (#24769177)

I haven't owned a nokia phone for quite a while, but this method definitely worked on both monochrome nokia phones I owned. These are the variety with snake built-in.

When you're at the lock screen, just type in *3001#12345# and now you're at the service menu. All you have to do is scroll down to the menu item for the lock code, select it, and your super secure lock code is now staring back at you in plaintext. Power cycle the phone, type in the code, and you've now got an unlocked phone.

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 5 years ago | (#24774545)

I have the same performance on my MotoQ9h. This is a ball dropped by Apple, not huge, but since this is /. it makes front page because Apple articles almost always result in a flamewar...

-Lifyre

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

toleraen (831634) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766543)

Hmm, on my phone too many wrong pins and you're locked out. All you can do is answer calls. Plus the SD card is encrypted, so if they factory reset the key is lost with it. I may lose my phone, but at least they don't get my data.

Re:The easier and more complete way (3, Insightful)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 5 years ago | (#24767001)

Exactly, I think everyone at Slashdot knows that if someone has physical access to your hardware, you've already lost the security game.

I don't know if that applies to the Blackberry family. 10 tries and the phone wipes itself out to factory settings only to be recovered by the enterprise BES server. Haven't read a whole lot about holes in that strategy.

Re:The easier and more complete way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24767281)

The hard drive or flash memory can be removed and read by a computer with a compatible interface.

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 5 years ago | (#24767535)

The hard drive or flash memory can be removed and read by a computer with a compatible interface.

Um. No, it can't. Not in the blackberry anyways, at least not without decrypting it first and good luck with that.

Re:The easier and more complete way (3, Insightful)

ballwall (629887) | more than 5 years ago | (#24767033)

Not really, blackberry seems pretty good at it.

Lame... (3, Insightful)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 5 years ago | (#24767669)

What a lame excuse! Just because iphone shits itself when it comes to security does not mean ALL OTHERS do the same. Go do some fucking research and come back later.

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 5 years ago | (#24770853)

Except for the Trusted Computing fans.
They still have the delusion of "fixing" that.

-

Re:The easier and more complete way (5, Insightful)

Teese (89081) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766013)

Actually all you need to do is call the iphone, then when the call ends you are back at the home screen unrestricted. On a slightly unrelated note most security articles seem to point out the obvious flaws instead of the clever ones (clearly the iphone lock function is only a slight deterrent)

That's interesting.

typical behavior when you realize you've lost your phone: Call it, and see if you can hear the ring.

Now when that happens, the person who stole it can answer and say "thanks for unlocking your phone!"

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766655)

Now when that happens, the person who stole it can answer and say "thanks for unlocking your phone!"

...if the parent's claim were actually true. It's not.

Re:The easier and more complete way (3, Funny)

Teese (89081) | more than 5 years ago | (#24768239)

Now when that happens, the person who stole it can answer and say "thanks for unlocking your phone!"

...if the parent's claim were actually true. It's not.

Well, that's good to hear.

(as an aside: I shall no longer consider Brilthor a reliable source. Do you hear that Brilthor? Your credibility has been attacked by cduffy! cduffy has a 3 digit slashdot ID, yours is 6. I implicitly trust cduffy over Brilthor - unless new evidence is presented. Or a lower ID backs Brilthor. Then I'm going to be confused.)

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#24768743)

The only solution... what does CmdrTaco think?

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

Blkdeath (530393) | more than 5 years ago | (#24769127)

Now when that happens, the person who stole it can answer and say "thanks for unlocking your phone!"

...if the parent's claim were actually true. It's not.

Well, that's good to hear.

(as an aside: I shall no longer consider Brilthor a reliable source. Do you hear that Brilthor? Your credibility has been attacked by cduffy!

Except that cduffy is absolutely correct; Brilthor is incorrect.

n.b. I own a Blackberry, I just walked over to my co-worker's desk and tested both security work-arounds. The Emergency Call / Double Tap feature worked as advertised; it brought me to his favourites. Calling the iPhone and ending the call brought me back to the "Slide to unlock" screen.

So until an addendum to Brilthor's claim is presented that actually works, I'll continue knowing that they're wrong - UID notwithstanding.

Re:The easier and more complete way (2, Interesting)

rsborg (111459) | more than 5 years ago | (#24770513)

Actually all you need to do is call the iphone, then when the call ends you are back at the home screen unrestricted. On a slightly unrelated note most security articles seem to point out the obvious flaws instead of the clever ones (clearly the iphone lock function is only a slight deterrent)

That's interesting. typical behavior when you realize you've lost your phone: Call it, and see if you can hear the ring. Now when that happens, the person who stole it can answer and say "thanks for unlocking your phone!"

I just tried this, and although hanging up will eject you... if *while in-call*, the phone user navigates to any non-phone app (ie, safari) then hangs up the call, the phone won't re-lock.

This is unfortunate, but I can't think of an easy way to make the phone usable and secure for this use-case... which brings up the interesting point... Is the password really secure? Is it reasonable to expect PC-level security for what is, primarily, a phone?

If someone stole my old Nokia or Sony-Erricson, which didn't really have passwords, they would also have all my contact information, and calendar details. If it's a company phone and you're reasonably sure you lost the phone, shouldn't the first move be to remotely de-activate the phone, then try to find it afterwards?

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#24770763)

I just tried this, and although hanging up will eject you... if *while in-call*, the phone user navigates to any non-phone app (ie, safari) then hangs up the call, the phone won't re-lock.

I just tried this too; every attempt to navigate to another app while using the phone was met with the password screen. Perhaps it's a firmware difference?

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

rsborg (111459) | more than 5 years ago | (#24771469)

I just tried this too; every attempt to navigate to another app while using the phone was met with the password screen. Perhaps it's a firmware difference?

You're correct, my experience was user error (passcode had been turned off recently), so it looks (more) secure.

Re:The easier and more complete way (5, Informative)

shitzu (931108) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766093)

Actually all you need to do is call the iphone, then when the call ends you are back at the home screen unrestricted.

No it does not. It still asks for the code after the call has ended.

Re:The easier and more complete way (2, Informative)

Brilthor (754604) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766527)

just tested again; I can't seem to re-create it, it was an observation I made a couple days ago, apparently missed something doesn't change the fact that you just need to plug it into a computer to get the data anyways

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766669)

just tested again; I can't seem to re-create it, it was an observation I made a couple days ago, apparently missed something doesn't change the fact that you just need to plug it into a computer to get the data anyways

It depends. If the phone is unlocked and you receive a call, the iPhone will remain unlocked. If the phone is idle, and it rings, it'll wake up, you answer call, then when call is finished, it'll turn off again. NOw, during the call, it may be unlocked (haven't tried) since you can do other things while on a call (and it puts up that "tap to return to call" banner), so that may be an entry point.

However, iTunes will only sync with an iPhone that it previously synced with. If you plug it into a new iTunes, it'll erase the old synced content first before allowing you to sync iTunes. (It asks first, though, if you want to sync the iPhone with that iTunes, so you can't just erase it by plugging into a random iTunes and doing nothing).

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 5 years ago | (#24767993)

Couldn't you just change the iTunes settings to think different (and recognize the new iPhone as an old one?)

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

wootcat (1151911) | more than 5 years ago | (#24768589)

NOw, during the call, it may be unlocked (haven't tried) since you can do other things while on a call (and it puts up that "tap to return to call" banner), so that may be an entry point.

Just tried this. No, it's not. If you answer a locked phone, pressing the Home button brings you to the passcode entry screen. You also get the passcode entry screen if you try to view Contacts from the in-call screen.

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

l0cust (992700) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777271)

quoting from this post [slashdot.org]

I just tried this, and although hanging up will eject you... if *while in-call*, the phone user navigates to any non-phone app (ie, safari) then hangs up the call, the phone won't re-lock.

I don't own an iPhone so can't test this claim but probably someone who owns one can test it out.

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

boredandatwork (1339259) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766113)

On a slightly unrelated note most security articles seem to point out the obvious flaws instead of the clever ones (clearly the iphone lock function is only a slight deterrent)

Well, yeah. It helps to understand it before posting "ZOMG IPHONE SUX HAHAHA", otherwise, you just get lost in all the "details" and wander off.

Re:The easier and more complete way (2, Informative)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766147)

My iphone blanks and when it wake it it prompts for the code. This is on 2.0.1

Re:The easier and more complete way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24767613)

On my iPhone 3G, the phone goes back to being locked after I finish a received call.

Re:The easier and more complete way (1)

WillyDavidK (977353) | more than 5 years ago | (#24782785)

If the phone was locked when it was called, it will show a 'slide to unlok' message, and after the call is over, the phone will automatically lock itself again.

If the phone is unlocked (or presumably at the unlock screen) when it was called, it will show an 'answer call' button (no slider) and after the call ends, it will go back to whatever screen it was on at the time of the call, which in this case would be the unlock screen.

Fail.

The lock isn't effective anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24766707)

If I've got your iPhone, I can plug it into my Mac and sync all of your contacts/favourites/everything else off with iTunes. And if you've jailbroken it, I can probably get root access with ssh and the "alpine" password, since no-one ever changes that. If I've got physical access to your device there's very little you can do to stop me getting your data unless you've encrypted it.

Re:The lock isn't effective anyway (1)

zn0k (1082797) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766893)

If I've got your iPhone, I can plug it into my Mac and sync all of your contacts/favourites/everything else off with iTunes. And if you've jailbroken it, I can probably get root access with ssh and the "alpine" password, since no-one ever changes that.

If I've got physical access to your device there's very little you can do to stop me getting your data unless you've encrypted it.

You can't sync an iPhone (or iPod) with an instance of iTunes that it hasn't synced with previously without formatting the device.

If you're running an SSH daemon on a device and keep well published default accounts and passwords around, well, you really don't deserve any better.

This is a classic sandbox bug. (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766761)

I've run into all kinds of "kiosk" applications on every platform where this kind of bug exists, from bulletin board systems using applications with shell escapes in the '70s and '80s through "telnet:" URLs in restricted freenix front ends to embedded browsers on dektop operating systems. You can also use similar tricks to get past Apple's kiosk attract mode on Macs in computer stores, an I've run into them in a number of PC vendor demo modes over the years.

When you build a sandbox you have to build it from the inside out. Never introduce anything to the sandbox unless you are absolutely certain that it doesn't have a backdoor. Not "unless you are certain you can close the backdoors"... sandbox programs have to be built around a model that "fails closed"... any action that increases privileges must require an explicit action from outside the program (such as installing a plugin). The amount of effort to build a sandbox out of components that default to an open mode and need to be "locked down" is so much greater that it's easier to reinvent the wheel than patch up the wrong kind of wheel to fit.

One question: Why only 4 digit pin? (2, Insightful)

CPE1704TKS (995414) | more than 5 years ago | (#24766991)

This is the 21st century. I can understand defaulting to 4 digit pin, but why can't I choose a longer pin? My gf's Blackberry allows you to enter a much longer string. I have over a 6 digit pin for my ATM card. Why exactly does Apple force people to only have a 4 digit pin for the phone?

Re:One question: Why only 4 digit pin? (1)

drrck (959788) | more than 5 years ago | (#24767507)

Are you suggesting that someone can more easily brute force a 4 digit PIN as opposed to a 6 digit one?

Re:One question: Why only 4 digit pin? (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 5 years ago | (#24768035)

yes, 10^4 (numeric) or 36^4 (alpha-numeric) is smaller than 10^6 and 36^6. At least, last time I checked.

Re:One question: Why only 4 digit pin? (1)

drrck (959788) | more than 5 years ago | (#24768129)

Mathematically yes I realize, but in the context of the time required to do either on a touchscreen phone is it even significant?

Re:One question: Why only 4 digit pin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777425)

Say you enter one PIN a second (really fast but it keeps it simple). 10,000 possible PINs takes you about 2.77 hrs. Now, for 1,000,000 that becomes 277 hrs, which is more then 10 days. Is that significant enough? Hell just making it alpha-numeric vs. digit based makes a 4-character PIN stronger then 6-digit PIN.

Now, in a system with some level of automation to enter the pin the time is probably insignificant. This is why to properly secure Windows-based systems you usually impose some sort of lock-out to prevent brute force attacks from being overly feasible.

Re:One question: Why only 4 digit pin? (2, Insightful)

Rayeth (1335201) | more than 5 years ago | (#24768171)

The point is that a human doing either is wasting their time. There are easier and more profitable things to do when you have the hardware in your hands (like sell it to someone else) than try to break into the home screen.

Re:One question: Why only 4 digit pin? (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 5 years ago | (#24769369)

Even if it were smaller, the point was either:

A. A human user could not do either in an acceptable amount of time

OR

B. If they had some kind of remote access, a brute force check would be a trivial amount of time for 4 char or 6 char strings.

Either way, they're both only a slight deterrent.

Re:One question: Why only 4 digit pin? (1)

Autonin (322765) | more than 5 years ago | (#24769363)

My iPhone lock uses a passphrase - all 26 letters, upper and lower (52), all numbers (10), all characters (35), and the space - and not a PIN. It's also considerably longer that 4 characters. For fun, I put in 25 characters and it was ready to accept more.

98 ^ 25 = 6.03 x 10^49 combinations - you'd be there awhile.

What version are you running? You might want to consider updating.

Re:One question: Why only 4 digit pin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24774209)

this is a really stupid "feature" -- it technically allows full QWERTY PINs of any length, but only if the feature is enabled in an enterprise provisioning profile. there's a tool to make one on the apple site for free.

it shouldn't be this difficult, but the pin is mostly useless to protect against theft anyway, and hopefully anyone with sensitive data would be connected to an ActiveSync server that can do remote wipe...

Local security does not exist (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#24768117)

Local security does not exist. If someone has access to your hardware, consider it compromised.

Impractical? Hell yes. But that doesn't reality.

Re:Local security does not exist (2, Informative)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 5 years ago | (#24771333)

Only in the absence of encryption (which happens to be absent on an iPhone).

My BlackBerry on the other hand, I can hand to someone with confidence that my data is safe for the foreseeable future (as with any encryption, it's only secure for as long as it would reasonably take to brute force the password)

Don't freak out... (1)

MrPerfekt (414248) | more than 5 years ago | (#24768429)

Just set your double tap home to disable or ipod. Not much you can do then. But yes, double tap should probably be disabled when locked.

New firmware bugs? Odd... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24770861)

Double-click the home button on the PIN screen... nope, goes back to the PIN screen.
Oh, this is a 2.0 firmware thing? Nevermind -- I'm still using the 1.x firmware. Yes, not jailbroken.
Although, the emergency call button will show the time at the top instead of the lock icon... I think I see where the problem could be -- the emergency call screen runs unprotected, and double-click in unlocked app takes you back, either to the PIN screen or your home.
Call self... nope, double-click still takes me to lock screen.

This is a known patched bug (2, Informative)

SenorPhatnutZ (1352529) | more than 5 years ago | (#24772239)

Hi all, I just happened to be browsing apple dev center trying to figure out some details on the bonjour service. I'm not sure I like it running on my network so I wanted to know more... Found the apple security site which lists their known flaws and security bugs. Scrolling through happened to see this one, remembered this post and here ya all go:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1312?viewlocale=en_US [apple.com]

or if you prefer:

        *

            Passcode Lock

            CVE-ID: CVE-2008-0034

            Available for: iPhone v1.0 through v1.1.2

          Impact: An unauthorized user may bypass the
Passcode Lock and launch iPhone applications

            Description: The Passcode Lock feature is
designed to prevent applications from being
launched unless the correct passcode is entered.

An implementation issue in the handling of
emergency calls allows users with physical access
to an iPhone to launch an application without the
passcode. This update addresses the issue through
an improved check on the state of the Passcode
Lock.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...