Beta
×

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!

Unreleased iPhone 2.0 May Already Be Hacked

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the who-gave-the-hackers-time-travel-machines dept.

Software 183

The as-yet unreleased second iteration of iPhone hardware may already be compromised, reports Engadget and News.com. Members of the 'iPhone Dev Team' have (supposedly) made use of the recently released SDK to gin up a Beta 2.0 software hack. "Unlike previous hacks, this one isn't specific to the latest firmware version, it exploits the way that Apple designed the iPhone's main bootloader. According to the iPhone Dev Team, the iPhone verifies whether or not firmware code has been signed with an RSA certificate before allowing it to be written to memory. The team has apparently figured out a way to disable that check and allow unsigned code to be written to memory."

cancel ×

183 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pertinent word... (3, Interesting)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768580)

WAS...

I'm sure the iPhone 2 will be held back until this is fixed.

Re:Pertinent word... (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768632)

Well, it's funny that Jobs likes to lecture the music and movie industry about the futility of DRM, but then he tries to lock down the iPhone.

If he were rational (which is not to say that irrational precludes being brilliant), I don't think he'd really care that much about iPhone hacking, unless people started to look at it as something safe and normal and that Apple should support those hacks.

When somebody solders a modchip onto a game console motherboard, he knows very well that he's on his own. But when a hacked up iPhone starts to feel normal to users, then Apple loses the ability to control the release cycle. They don't want their new products to compete with hacks for their existing ones, because they've discovered the secret of the software subscription model Microsoft toyed with a few years ago: you don't call it a subscription, you call it spiffy new hardware.

Of course, he might well be totally ape-shit over iPhone hacking, I don't know. I don't think like him, which is why I'm not rich.

Re:Pertinent word... (4, Insightful)

cybereal (621599) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768788)

If he were rational (which is not to say that irrational precludes being brilliant), I don't think he'd really care that much about iPhone hacking, unless people started to look at it as something safe and normal and that Apple should support those hacks.

This is precisely the concern. Have you ever worked in support? I worked technical support for several years. The worst part of the whole ordeal was dealing with all of the unpredictability on the other end. This is the only reason we had no official Linux support. It was the reason we only needed 3 people to handle all Macintosh calls. The more predictable the workspace on the other end of the line, the better a technician can deal with a situation.

This also applies to software development. This is what makes game consoles attractive, you have a reliable set of expectations to target. You know, when you have a device as sophisticated in software as the iPhone (it's got an entire OS, not just some execution firmware like non-smartphones) it is infinitely helpful to be able to predict what will or will not be going on there.

So, while I'm sure Apple has no realistic expectation to avoid firmware hacking, I do believe they try to keep the expected cases in place as best as they can without getting ridiculous so the quality of software can remain high. So they can provide what they claim to provide in the device.

While a more savvy person may realize their phone is running out of battery twice as fast because of some software they put on there themselves, the average consumer is not going to understand any of this reasoning. Apple doesn't want to deal with phone calls and complaints that root from things the user did to themselves unwittingly. The easiest way to avoid that is making it hard for users to do it to themselves. Make it an effort to get hacked firmware and unapproved software and you achieve this goal. You don't have to prevent it 100%, and therefore, there is no logical argument that Apple is being hypocritical about their DRM stance. This isn't DRM, this is the virtual version of that welded bolt on the back of a service-only machine.

Any geek willing to break the seal is willing to forego support when they inevitably break the machine.

Re:Pertinent word... (4, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768848)

I find it amusing that they even try to lock it down. Unless they seal the thing in adamantium or lock it away in a secure server facility, any system is hackable. Even if it comes down to slicing lines on a PCB or soldering in a modchip between the memory and the northbridge.. it's just absolutely absurd to hand someone a device and tell them they can't hack it.

Re:Pertinent word... (5, Insightful)

voidptr (609) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768972)

The point isn't to make it unbreakable.

It's to make it enough of a pain in the ass that those who manage it realize they're wading into unsupported waters.

Re:Pertinent word... (4, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769260)

But the other poster's point is that anybody who's willing to open the device and make a modification already knows they're in unsupported waters. Making it difficult just wastes everyone's time.

Re:Pertinent word... (2, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769308)

But the other poster's point is that anybody who's willing to open the device and make a modification already knows they're in unsupported waters. Making it difficult just wastes everyone's time.

Not at all. Of course the people making the hacks know this; but this also means that when people download these things and install them, it's enough of a hassle that they're aware of what they're getting into.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

Murphy Murph (833008) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769904)

Not at all. Of course the people making the hacks know this; but this also means that when people download these things and install them, it's enough of a hassle that they're aware of what they're getting into.

I will propose to you, strongly, that there is no such point.
People will lie to their mother regarding the state of their firmware in order to get support. The user always knows more than the developer, and takes great pride in solving just enough of the problem to convince themselves that the firmware-as-provided is at fault, not their hack or modification.
With this "knowledge" in hand - they will lie up to (and sometimes beyond) the point they are caught in their deception.

No, modified firmware in the wild makes non-local support a PITA. Users will even lie about strings from a debug menu if they believe you're attempting to verify the modification status of their firmware.

Re:Pertinent word... (2, Insightful)

base3 (539820) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769428)

"Unsupported" != "Deliberate device disablement via updates for hacked devices"

Re:Pertinent word... (5, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770118)

"Unsupported" != "Deliberate device disablement via updates for hacked devices"


Here we go again.

Has it been proven it was deliberate? Because there was an update later on (1.1.2, I believe) that fixed all the "bricked" phones. Which would mean that whoever unlocked their phone, the software was done poorly enough that the updates were screwed up. Even the iPhone Elite Team says it's due to a messed up unlock patch [google.com] . A hack

And Apple said it will brick phones if they unlocked the phone and update. The solution was to avoid updating until later...

Heck, Nintendo has to start warning too that their updates may brick the Wii, as well, if there were any third-party modifications done to it.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770314)

Has it been proven that it wasn't?

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769204)

it's just absolutely absurd to SELL someone a device and tell them they can't hack it.

fixed that for you

Re:Pertinent word... (1, Funny)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769052)

Are you sure that the reason why you only required 3 Mac support people wasn't because you only had two people using Macs? ;)

Re:Pertinent word... (4, Informative)

Chrononium (925164) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769356)

I know that you made this comment in jest, but a few years back when I was a hardware engineer at Apple, we literally only had 5 or 6 IT guys for the whole campus, which probably implied 5 or 6 guys for approximately 5000 computers. Sure, a lot of that was because you were more or less trusted to operate a computer (at least in engineering, but I think it applied in other buildings too), but that's still a massive accomplishment. The university lab I'm at now is dedicated to computational electromagnetics and they do fairly well with only two guys for the 200 or so computers here. But that's largely because we can't do much of anything without their say so. I think the Mac, when properly understood and matched up with the proper IT philosophy, can do wonders. And I bet you can't guess how many people ran the iTunes Music store hardware. It was pretty darn awesome.

Re:Pertinent word... (4, Insightful)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769196)

Yes, allowing the user to modify a device complicates support. But this can be dealt with - look at how e.g. HP and Dell manage user support nowadays? "Reset your system to the factory-shipped state with the included Restore partition - problem solved." This is even easier to do with the iPhone.

Thing is, users don't have to install any third-party software, if they want a "guaranteed quality experience". Why not simply allow people the choice about how they use their device? Hell, put up a warning on install - "You are now straying from the Apple Way - Abandon All Hope!" - but to assume that *every* customer is incapable of managing their own device is just insulting.

What bugs me most is how Apple apologists go on about how the iPhone is so great because "it's got an entire OS!" (like this is new) - and then claim that every limit on this OS, every restriction and removal of user choice, is actually somehow for the user's benefit. "No 3G? Might kill battery. No Flash? Might kill performance. No plugins? Might, um, break something." It really gets old.

Yeah yeah, vote with my wallet, I don't have to buy one. I'd really like to buy one, they've done so much right with it, but these decisions are deal-breakers for me, and the continual excuses don't give me hope that this will change.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769550)

My Nokia 6120 classic:
-allows me to install java apps
-allows me to install native symbian apps
-is fully supported by nokia
-was free on a $30 phone plan (very cheap to pick up too)

Re:Pertinent word... (4, Interesting)

globaljustin (574257) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769288)

worked technical support for several years. The worst part of the whole ordeal was dealing with all of the unpredictability on the other end.

Saving money on doing tech. support has nothing to do with Apple's response to iphone hacks! Anyone who would have the capability to hack an iphone would know that if you hack it, you can't get support for it.

Apple is concerned with money. More specifically, they got big bucks from AT&T to make it exclusive. AT&T have a vested interest to make sure that their investment is worth it. Apple has to prove to AT&T that all possible measures are being taken to ensure that if someone buys an iphone, they use AT&T service. That's what's in play here. Tech support is irrelevant.

I bet Jobs personally at least sympathizes with those who want to hack iphones so they can use them with any phone services. The deal with AT&T may not have been his call in the end.

off-topic, Parent post is a troll in disguise...basically he's ranting about frustrations of doing tech support and somehow managed to loosely connect it to the topic

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769618)

given the US cell structure, the need for backend features (visual voice mail, etc), and the need for a flat fee data plan, they'd be hard pressed to try it on their own.

But they're using the same structure in other markets when they could license (or give away) the visual voice mail specs and allow everyone to be iPhone compatible.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769852)

He'd better sympathize. IIRC, he and Woz got their start building blueboxes [wikipedia.org] in a garage..

Re:Pertinent word... (3, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769296)

Any geek willing to break the seal is willing to forego support when they inevitably break the machine.

Right. As an iPhone owner, I hacked mine a while back. It was really easy. Part of the problem, though, is that the OS has been changing often enough that most apps won't work unless they're written for the specific firmware you're using, so the payoff of hacking your phone is diminished. I think lots of developers stopped keeping up figuring they'd wait for the official SDK.

Anyway, I don't doubt that the iPhone will keep getting hacked for as long as it's useful to hack it. I'm betting either Apple will be very reasonable about letting people distribute on iTunes, or else people will immediately hack a different distribution method for unauthorized apps. Either way you'll be able to get the apps you want with a minimum of hassle.

It's going to happen, and the iPhone will be a cool platform. If Apple's smart (which they often show themselves to be) then they won't fight it.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

EmotionToilet (1083453) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768884)

DRM in the music business makes listening to music more difficult for consumers and is designed to make music sales more profitable for the record companies. It gives them more control over the music files after they've been sold and downloaded by consumers. DRM is of NO benefit to consumers, and that's why people hate it. Apple seems to be keeping the iPhone under control not to make things more difficult for consumers, but to make it easier for consumers. As Apple maintains the software that is allowed on the phone, they are keeping the phone stable and reliable and helping keep it running in a way that is better for the consumer. They do have to follow a few little rules that are a result of their agreements with AT&T (no VOIP on Edge network), but for the most part I think the SDK will open the phone up a lot to a variety of possibilities.

I would be afraid to hack my iPhone. I don't care to have hacked code running on it. I had no idea what type of consequences there would be. And I've heard from people that the quality of jailbreak apps isn't that great anyways.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768890)

Could they have simply been required (by AT&T or the record companies) to implement some kind of security, and they simply didn't test it well enough because they didn't care enough? Perhaps this flaw exists because they simply considered it "good enough" and didn't think it worth the additional time to fix?

Re:Pertinent word... (2, Interesting)

PNutts (199112) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768920)

Well, it's funny that Jobs likes to lecture the music and movie industry about the futility of DRM, but then he tries to lock down the iPhone.


Well, one difference is that when your download "breaks", you can download it again or you are SOL (depending on the agreement you made when you downloaded it). A "broken" iPhone goes back to the store which starts a *very* expensive process (to AT&T and Apple). Hardware != Content. He just wants the goddam thing to work, which is why I bought the wifey a Mac instead of a PC. That's a revenue model I'm on board with.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768926)

The really funny part of the story is how much free publicity Apple gets every time the iPhone gets 'hacked.'

Hacking the iPhone does not damage credibility the way hacking a software package does. Instead, these hacks are beckoning people to the platform with the promise of previously unattainable functionality on a handheld.

If I were launching a new device I would follow Apple's lead on this one... possibly even setting up a dark proxy org to regularly hack my device.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768962)

The better strategy would be to release an open platform with exciting potential and let news sites run with it. Look how much free publicity Android's gotten- not because it's been hacked but because it's awesome! Then again if you play the sensible way you can't brick thousands of phones and blame the consumer.

Re:Pertinent word... (3, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769180)

write again when andriod is actually out on a smart phone.

Not a single manufacture is using it yet. When they release an actual product I will then judge it, until then it is vaporware with source code. As Android is worthless without hardware.

Re:Pertinent word... (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768938)

Well, it's funny that Jobs likes to lecture the music and movie industry about the futility of DRM, but then he tries to lock down the iPhone.

Yes, but Apple only does this as a safeguard to help protect more timid users. Apple, unlike the music studios, knows it will be broken and does not really care.

If he were rational (which is not to say that irrational precludes being brilliant), I don't think he'd really care that much about iPhone hacking

He doesn't, which is why the last iPhone update did not break jailbroken phones.

Re:Pertinent word... (3, Insightful)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769456)

I never got the impression that Apple has ever intentionally break jailbroken iPhones. I doubt they even test their updates against them before release. The original jailbroken phones changed some stuff the update wasn't expecting and so you ended up with a broken phone. The more recent updates happen to not interfere with jailbreak. I'd think that is as much coincidence as intentional.

Re:Pertinent word... (4, Insightful)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770098)

Yes, but Apple only does this as a safeguard to help protect more timid users.

Funny, because I recall Steve Jobs making it clear in September that Apple would fight attempts to unlock the iPhone. [cnet.com] He didn't say anything about protecting the timid. I think it went more like this. [youtube.com] "It's a cat and mouse game" and "It's our job to keep them from breaking in." I guess I missed his "Protect the timid" speech.

He doesn't, which is why the last iPhone update did not break jailbroken phones.

Yeaaaaah... I'm sure you're right SuperKendal. Steve was just feeling generous. I don't imagine that billion dollar class action lawsuit [pcworld.com] regarding the intentional bricking had anything to do with it.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770274)

Funny, because I recall Steve Jobs making it clear in September that Apple would fight attempts to unlock the iPhone.

Well of course, as he doesn't want to upset AT&T. As I said, he knows it will fail. Also, SIM unlock is a different matter than locking down the phone for programming (as in Jailbreak).

Yaaaaah... I'm sure you're right SuperKendal. Steve was just feeling generous.

You misspelled my name McDork. He wasn't feeling generous - he just simply doesn't care. This is pretty obvious, do try and keep up.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770206)

"Yes, but Apple only does this as a safeguard to help protect more timid users. Apple, unlike the music studios, knows it will be broken and does not really care."

Haha that's funny. Apple does it to protect its revenue stream. Timid users have nothing to do with it.

"He doesn't, which is why the last iPhone update did not break jailbroken phones."

That completely ignores the efforts Apple has made to break these hacks in the past. Caring about iPhone hacking isn't an all or nothing issue.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770296)

Haha that's funny. Apple does it to protect its revenue stream. Timid users have nothing to do with it.

So then why didn't Apple break jailbreaking last update? Oh, so sorry to utterly destroy whatever shred of point you had there.

That completely ignores the efforts Apple has made to break these hacks in the past.

You mean actually fixing bugs in the phone? I can't see why Apple would not want to leave a gaping security whole in place. Oh wait, they aren't Microsoft.

You ignoring the fact Apple didn't break it is a lot worse than my pointing out that sometimes Apple actions do not break Jailbreaks. All it takes is a handful of times to prove my theory, whereas yours is suspect the moment a single firmware update comes along that does not undo Jailbreak or break installed apps. If your theory was correct, EVERY update would include an attempt by Apple to break installed apps or the jaibreaking process. Every time from now until the end of time you must preface your argument that Apple is protecting revenue stream with a valid reason why THIS update did not do as you predict, whereas all I have do do is point to this one to show Apple doesn't care as much about unauthorized apps as you or others claim they do.

Re:Pertinent word... (2, Interesting)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769062)

Well, it's funny that Jobs likes to lecture the music and movie industry about the futility of DRM, but then he tries to lock down the iPhone.


What is happening on the iPhone is not DRM. DRM is about copy-protection.

There are many parallels between DRM and closed hardware platforms, but they are two very distinct issues.

Apple's reasons for clamping down on the iPhone are very likely to be quite numerous, not to mention whatever sort of contractual obligations they have to fulfill with AT&T. It's not pretty, but it's how the mobile phone industry works in the US.

I can understand people being disappointed that the iPhone is a closed and locked platform, but displaying outright anger over the issue is absurd. Nobody's forcing you to buy an iPhone, nor is anything preventing some bright entrepreneur from making something better.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

bnenning (58349) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769606)

DRM is about copy-protection.

That's what's said publicly, but really it's about control. Consider DVD region coding; that has nothing to do with copy protection, it's just enforcing market segmentation.

Re:Pertinent word... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22769104)

What's really funny is that everytime MS gets pwnt the story gets a 'haha' tag. When it's Apple it doesn't.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

catwh0re (540371) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769856)

I believe what we're witnessing isn't so much the jobsian irrational behaviour(although seen plenty of that in the past), but rather business tactics.

Just like DRM was to music, Apple first needed to prove to the music industry that a lock down was ineffectual. Only then would the music industry begin to release it's grip, well after they've grown accustomed to the new digital music model. (As were consumers, hence the decline of the CD.)

This is analogous to the mobile carrier industry. First they need to be cooed with promises of a phone locked to their network. Then over time release that as it's proven ineffective.

Thirdly we have shareholders and wall-street who need to see all this iphone development going into something that will make apple mega-bucks. Then over time we'll see that lapse. Overall you have apple's one true goal: Product sales. iPods, iPhones and Macs.

In business it's all really about seeing what you can get away with.

Re:Pertinent word... (3, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770106)

Well, it's funny that Jobs likes to lecture the music and movie industry about the futility of DRM, but then he tries to lock down the iPhone.

While the difference between content and applications (or even between types of content) bear directly on Job's statements, you don't even need to look that far. Jobs said that DRM was a flawed concept and would never work for the long term... but Apple implemented it anyway because the RIAA required it to do business in the music industry and without them the iPod would have never materialized, or at least never gained significant market. The same thing applies here. Apple cannot ever "win" the fight against iPhone modders, nor is that their goal. Their goal is to make it inconvenient enough so that the modding community never makes up significant share of iPhones and so they can meet their contracts with the big players in this industry, particularly AT&T who Apple has to keep happy and who probably has a signed contract (trade secret of course so it will never be public unless the courts make it so) that says Apple has to perform due diligence to lock down applications to prevent VoIP on the cell network as well as other apps that threaten AT&T's money making services.

If he were rational (which is not to say that irrational precludes being brilliant)...

I think Jobs has proved himself rational, nor do I think you're understanding his position. He's made Apple a lot of money while still espousing the opinion that DRM is a flawed concept. That is what he believes and even what he pressures others to accept in deals with Apple, but at the same time he is willing to do what it takes to get a start in a new market; be it music downloads, movies, TV, or smart phones. It is a very reasoned person who can state their opinions consistently, yet at the same time be wiling to bend to the big players in the market who hold the keys to successful entry.

When somebody solders a modchip onto a game console motherboard, he knows very well that he's on his own. But when a hacked up iPhone starts to feel normal to users, then Apple loses the ability to control the release cycle.

I doubt Apple cares that much about locking down iPhones beyond what it takes to keep AT&T happy. Very few people will modify their iPhones to run other software (compared to how many people buy them in total). Sure, Jobs sees an opportunity for more security and stability with whitelists, but they've implemented the same thing to a lesser extent on Macs as well nd you don't see it being used to try to seriously stop users who want to do something and are willing to hack.

They don't want their new products to compete with hacks for their existing ones, because they've discovered the secret of the software subscription model Microsoft toyed with a few years ago: you don't call it a subscription, you call it spiffy new hardware.

I don't really think this is Apple's plan. They've had lots of opportunity in both iPod and Mac markets to artificially break compatibility with older hardware. If a new version of OS X ran more slowly than an old version, pretty much no one would have batted an eye, since MS has them conditioned to think of this as normal. Instead, each revision was faster on old hardware than the previous revision (well maybe 10.4 was break-even in some cases). Apple has always sold their new hardware on new hardware features, not on mandatory upgrades enforced by software (and I have a dual 533 Mhz PPC tower in the corner still running as a media server to prove it). And before you bring up the iPod touch, read about Apple's media codec licenses and Sarbanes-Oxley as interpreted by quite a few (but not all) companies in technology.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768672)

WAS...

Antitrust. [slashdot.org] There, fixed that for ya... d(^_-)

What serious developers really care anyway? Do you think you're going to see Rhapsody or Napster on it? P2P apps? You can't even develop a competing web browser because of the interpreted code clause. Who is going to go to the trouble of dumping the time and money into developing an app just to have Apple say "No thanks" and refuse to sign and distribute it for you... for that matter, what serious developers consider Apple clipping them for 30% to be a fair deal? Maybe if you're selling $10 shareware or some lame games, but why is Apple entitled to 30% of my revenue if I develop a killer phone app that runs on a subscription model?

Re:Pertinent word... (2, Interesting)

arminw (717974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768842)

....I develop a killer phone app.......

If you do, so what? You still have to sell it somehow, unless you write it just for your own amusement. Do you think that people will sell your stuff for free, no matter even if it is insanely great? If given the choice of your "killer" app which may be virus infested, or a clean "vetted by Apple" program, directly from Apple's servers, which with most people pay money for?

Re:Pertinent word... (2, Insightful)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768986)

If you do, so what? You still have to sell it somehow, unless you write it just for your own amusement. Do you think that people will sell your stuff for free, no matter even if it is insanely great?

I have my own server, my own credit card merchant account, and my own SSL certificate vouched for by a root certificate authority accepted by all major web browsers. You're assuming I want or even need Apple's assistance in selling and distributing my software.

If given the choice of your "killer" app which may be virus infested, or a clean "vetted by Apple" program, directly from Apple's servers, which with most people pay money for?

So you're saying Mac OS X is insecure and riddled with viruses? Even Apple would disagree [youtube.com] when they aren't talking out of the other side of their mouth. Are you suggesting that Adobe Photoshop, a Mac stalwart that has been on the platform for nearly two decades, is insecure because it executes interpreted code? Have you any shred of proof whatsoever? No, you don't, because it doesn't exist. Thanks to the restrictions on the SDK, you'll never see anything like it on your iPhone unless Apple produces it themselves.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

arminw (717974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770078)

.....I want or even need Apple's assistance.....

Do you not think that Apple has the right to specify the particulars as to how the software for their devices are to be written and distributed? Nobody HAS to write software for any particular gadget or computer. Apple will try very hard to avoid for their products what happened to Windows.

Iphones and itouch are special purpose devices, even if they are based on a general purpose OS. Because of Windows, people are already used to the idea of an occasional BSOD or frozen interface in computers. However, most people I know, expect their iphones to work as reliably, as phones generally have in the past and their music player to do their thing they were bought for. They will not tolerate the kind of crap they have gotten used to in PCs in their phones.

I'm sure that there will be attempts to do to the iphone and itouch what has been done to Windows. Some may even be successful. Apple, by strictly controlling what can and what cannot be done with their product is simply trying to make it as hard as possible for malware to get a foothold.

Good luck to you getting many sales of any software not blessed by Apple and available on their certified application store. I know that I would never buy software from some outside, unknown source, if I could get the same or similar things from an official, quality controlled source. The slim possibility of saving a few dollars is not worth the risk.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770244)

Nobody HAS to write software for any particular gadget or computer.

That's sorta the point. Nobody of any measurable clout will. You'll get a handful of dippy games and shareware some developer could write in an afternoon. You won't see professional packages like Office or Photoshop. It's sad to see Apple crippling their phones like this. I was interested in developing apps for it, but not after hearing their unreasonable demands.

Apple will try very hard to avoid for their products what happened to Windows.

Yeah, 90% market share must be awful.

They will not tolerate the kind of crap they have gotten used to in PCs in their phones.

Uhh... iPhones crash. [salon.com] Your defense is extremely weak, yet I honestly think you actually believe it. That is so sad.

Re:Pertinent word... (5, Insightful)

nehril (115874) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768726)

the whole iphone dev system is interesting in that it is an attempt to finally invert the usual "blacklisted software" security system that has so often been the rule. rather than the busted concept of allowing all software to run, and then chasing down 'bad' ones with antivirus programs, rootkit detectors, spyware removers etc, they're moving to a whitelist. default deny, selective approve, with revocation.

just as any sane firewall is set up. (it would be nuts to set up a firewall to default allow all ports, and then start selectively blocking them only once an exploit that uses it becomes apparent, but then you have today's software security model doing just that.) forcing devs to buy a cert means they have somewhat of a point of authentication and also a hook to revoke all of a dev's apps if they fail to toe the line by releasing a virus, trojan, phish etc. Or "something that reduces apple's revenue" ;)

I believe leopard has the (currently unused) capability to do this built in as well. looks like the iphone is going to be a bit of a testbed for the concept. this kind of thing is only possible really with a "brand new" os where you can start from day 1 with no backward compatibility problems. it's also the reason you're not allowed to run interpreters like java or javascript... else Sun would get a valid cert to load the java interpreter, which in turn could run anything on the planet bypassing the "run only whitelist code" concept.

I can't say i agree with such "mandatory*" restrictions on a computing device I purchased, but as a matter of security philosophy it really is quite interesting.

*well, mandatory if you want to run snazzy new SDK apps. they really should set up an "unsupported, you may be SORRY!!" class of signature that would let you run, at your own risk, anything from that signature.

Re:Pertinent word... (4, Insightful)

arminw (717974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768952)

....restrictions on a computing device ....

The iPhone is a PHONE a wireless PHONE. Repeat this a thousand times. It is NOT a general purpose computer. Most people who bought or will buy this expensive gadget want a phone first of all and want that to work as reliably as any other phone at LEAST. Apple will and must do everything in its power that their phone or ipods don't become another Windows like portal for propagating all sorts of malware aimed at emptying unsuspecting people's bank accounts.

In that regard, Apple can simply inform iphone users in no uncertain terms that warranties on hacked devices are null and void. They are also within their rights to warn users that any update from Apple may indeed inadvertently brick their hacked devices. Unauthorized customer modifications and use of manufactured goods and machines have always resulted in lost warranties at the very least. Sometimes human lives are at stake.

Re:Pertinent word... (4, Insightful)

bnenning (58349) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769668)

The iPhone is a PHONE a wireless PHONE.

It's a device that can make phone calls, amongst other functionality. My Power Mac 7500 was making and receiving phone calls 10 years ago; that didn't transform it into a single-purpose appliance that would crash and burn if I did anything else with it.

Also, the iPod touch is not a phone.

It is NOT a general purpose computer.

Why not? It runs Unix, and its API looks a whole lot like that for Mac OS X. Apple may not want you to think of it as a computer, but objectively speaking it is.

Most people who bought or will buy this expensive gadget want a phone first of all and want that to work as reliably as any other phone at LEAST.

And yet if there's any way to run apps not approved by Apple, these same people who insist on reliability above all else will be stampeding to download malware-infested porn apps from the Elbonian mafia?

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769954)

It is NOT a general purpose computer.

"It lets us create desktop class applications and networking, not the crippled stuff you find on most phones. These are real desktop applications." - S. Jobs, 2007 [engadget.com]

Oh the irony.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

arminw (717974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770178)

.....These are real desktop applications......

Indeed that's great. The malware writers would also like to have THEIR wonderful applications run in these new, powerful devices. Apple just wants to make that much harder than Microsoft made it for their Windows systems. By inspecting software and controlling distribution, they can filter out possibly damaging programs. If some bad code gets through, they will know exactly who to blame, and if needed get the law after the originators. They can also quickly stop further spread of any undesirable code.

There are some fundamental technical limitations, such as limited battery power. Both Apple and users surely would hate to see a device suddenly go dead when it was most needed.

There certainly will be some useful and fun programs available for Apple's present and future gadgets. Apple can only gain from this and has no incentive to limit or prohibit technically fitting and truly useful programs that don't violate laws or their contractual obligations to service and content providers.

"OS X in a mobile device" :-/ (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770298)

Since when is malware such a big problem on WinMob, Symbian or Linux-based phones? Can't say I've heard of a single case. Symbian also implements app-signing, as of S60v3 and UIQv3, but they still allow open apps - and plugins. Besides, most malware spreads through code exploits, and the iPhone is as vulnerable to those as any other system.

Sorry, but the "Apple just wants to make life easier for you" line is so much BS. MacOS X isn't signed & locked down, why should "OS X in a mobile device" be so different? Are phones so much more mission-critical than computers? Am I too stupid to watch my own battery life? As I said elsewhere [slashdot.org] , insisting that *no* user is competant to manage his/her own device is just insulting.

What they want is to restrict the user's freedom of use simply in order to protect their (and their carriers') commercial interests, nothing more. There's no other reason to e.g. ban Skype over cell (which is encouraged [three.com.au] on other platforms).

This isn't "informative." (2, Insightful)

StarKruzr (74642) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770174)

The iPhone is a better computing device than it has ever been a phone. It has bad-to-mediocre voice quality. Anything that can BE a general purpose computer IS, in effect, a general purpose computer.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769544)

the whole iphone dev system is interesting in that it is an attempt to finally invert the usual "blacklisted software" security system that has so often been the rule. rather than the busted concept of allowing all software to run, and then chasing down 'bad' ones with antivirus programs, rootkit detectors, spyware removers etc, they're moving to a whitelist. default deny, selective approve, with revocation.

I think this is a less than ideal approach as well. What would really be ideal is a greylist, combining both known malware signatures to be blacklisted, as well as known "good" software signatures to whitelist along with an ACL as to what behavioral limits the software should be doing properly. More importantly, items and ACLs for the greylist should be "subscribable" from multiple security vendors. Maybe I trust Apple's security recommendations, but maybe I trust Clam AV's more, and would not mind paying $5 a month for Symantec's virus signature's and ACLs. Ideally, users should have a sane default from the OS vendor but also allow administrators to rate vendors and combine lists with each given a certain weight. I hope Apple, Linux vendors, IBM, Sun and other players can create a open protocol and format for such a system, before Microsoft implements a mandatory version of it that is "closed."

I believe leopard has the (currently unused) capability to do this built in as well.

Actually, this functionality is used to some degree. It verifies that an application does not change after the first time you run it (causing problems with Skype and a few other apps). It s also used to lock down some default network services by default (I think all of the network services open on the firewall by default). I'm pretty that includes their Zeroconf implementation.

I can't say i agree with such "mandatory*" restrictions on a computing device I purchased, but as a matter of security philosophy it really is quite interesting.

For a general purpose computing device, I agree. For an appliance, I'm less particular. I would like to avoid confusion right now though, and make a differentiation between what you're calling "mandatory restrictions" and the common description of locking down applications to an ACL which is called "mandatory access controls" and in which the word "mandatory" refers to applying an ACL to every application, not forcing a particular ACL upon a given application.

*well, mandatory if you want to run snazzy new SDK apps. they really should set up an "unsupported, you may be SORRY!!" class of signature that would let you run, at your own risk, anything from that signature.

Better yet, they should have a default, fairly restrictive ACL for applications without signatures, so that even if you run an application from some source you don't really trust, you are not completely unprotected by default. I don't think one warning when loading an application from someone Apple doesn't approve of and another warning when it wants to do anything risky (like access the network or record key presses).

One final comment, I think a lot of people are attributing a lot to "Apple" which is in some ways very accurate, but in another a bit misleading. In order to get a major carrier to carry an iPhone and provide a reasonable plan to let it work well enough to appeal to a mass market (instead of the the then existing market for smart phones) Apple had to sign some contracts. A lot of people forget that Apple had to make a lot of promises to AT&T to get them on board and other providers refused to sell the phone or the phone with a decently easy plan. Some of those promises included exclusivity in the states and restrictions to prevent VoIP over the cell network or other functions that would allow arbitrary software to undercut AT&T's proprietary services. Without AT&T onboard the iPhone would have gone nowhere and it is easy to armchair quarterback things and ignore the tradeoffs Apple had to make to get into the market in the first place.

Re:Pertinent word... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22769658)

But, most other phones allow Java ME apps with no problems. Why does Applie have such a problem with Java on the iPhone?

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

Jaime2 (824950) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769660)

I believe leopard has the (currently unused) capability to do this built in as well.

Windows has had this capability since 2000 through group policy. One of the restrictions is to allow a specific whitelist of software to run, specified as file hashes. The Microsoft .Net framework has the ability to restrict software by publisher signature.

A general purpose operating system can't get by with forcing all software to be signed by the OS vendor. However, the iPhone may succeed with this model because it is a phone and people won't have the expectation of general purpose usability. Comparing this feature with desktop OS feature is an apples to oranges comparison.

Re:Pertinent word... (1)

f_raze13 (982309) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769122)

Ironically enough, the summary doesn't even make use of the word was.

Don't get your hopes up. (2, Insightful)

Sterrance (1257342) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768604)

Jobs will pounce on this faster than a Leopard. They should have kept their mouths shut.

Re:Don't get your hopes up. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22769184)

And a few years ago he would've jumped on it as fast as a Tiger. And before that as fast as a Panther, a Jaguar, a Puma, or a Cheetah, depending on what year the comment was made.

Re:Don't get your hopes up. (1)

revscat (35618) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770124)

Would you care to put your money where your mouth is? If you are implying that Apple will take legal action against this I would be interested in placing a wager against that prediction. Say, $500?

Uh, did this ring a warning bell with anyone else? (1)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768612)

...allow unsigned code to be written to memory.

This doesn't sound that attractive to me.

Re:Uh, did this ring a warning bell with anyone el (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769238)

...allow unsigned code to be written to memory.
This doesn't sound that attractive to me.
Oh, baby, I can't wait for the first iPhone iVirus!

Re:Uh, did this ring a warning bell with anyone el (3, Insightful)

skingers6894 (816110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769462)

Except for the fact that it requires hacked firmware to do it. This requires you to first put the phone into emergency restore mode and physically plug it into your PC/Mac and then run a program to alter it. That's not called a virus or a security vulnerability that's called"I have physical access to my own iPhone and I WANT it hacked"

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. (1)

StarKruzr (74642) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770194)

You don't actually know what's good for you. You don't know what you need. You don't even really know what you want. You're also not capable of protecting yourself from malware threats.

Don't worry, though. Steve will make sure you don't hurt yourself.

!News (-1, Flamebait)

warrior_s (881715) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768614)

I understand that this is weekend and hence news will be slow.. but please stop posting a hack about a device that is not yet even released.. who knows the hack will work or not?

And NO, I am not going to read an article about how someone has written a hack about an unreleased piece of hardware. We are not even sure what will be there in the hardware, and its already hacked???

Re:!News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22768654)

And NO, I am not going to read an article
Wait, does that mean you usually do read the articles??? Treason!!! Get him!!!

Re:!News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22768854)

Are you serious?? how dare you write anything against an article about Apple? You are asking for it.. Now go and burn in karma hell.

Nice (2, Insightful)

aleph42 (1082389) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768618)

It's not the first time something is hacked before it's even released, but it's always funny.

What really makes this one a good example is that for once this lock used some kind of real crypto (RSA), not some security-through-obscurity stuff. And yet, of course, that defeated, by not even letting the check occured.

Because crypto scenario were Bob tries to hide something to bob, after giving Bob the key are just a bit to stupid to work.

Re:Nice (-1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768638)

why do the devs @ apple have to be such dicks about everything. just give the people who want to hack their phones a way to do it without bricking the damn thing... hell, give them instructions on how to do so. 97% of people wont, they just want a phone they can buy and use... there will always be a group of hackers wanting to screw around, appreciate them instead of trying to rip them a new asshole. This message is for you steve, you piece of shit.

Re:Nice (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768670)

There is a way to hack the phone without bricking it. You just can't expect Apple to support it any more.

I don't see a fashionable Gestapo listening to hip music whilst the stomp the iPhones of the infidel into the ground.

Re:Nice (2, Insightful)

aleph42 (1082389) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768898)

The way they "just don't support it anymore" looks a lot like doing everything they can to discourage anyone from tinkering with their device.

Which, by the way, is coherent with their whole DRM/iTune/exclusive_deals strategy of leveraging their control over their customer to limit competition.

In France, the best ISP, http://free.fr/ [free.fr] , gives you a modem that actually runs a trimed down version of linux, acts as a tivo, and even uses a custom version of vlc to stream videos (TV or VOD) to your PC or TV! People have tinkered a lot with it, to add youtube support and the like.
So excuse me for having high standards :)

Re:Nice (1)

Scaba (183684) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768934)

Because "hacking" the phone allows you to use networks other than AT&T (or the non-US equivalents). Apple makes a good deal of their iPhone money from the exclusive contract with AT&T (or the non-US equivalents). And also, there will be people who "hack" their phone, break something, then demand Apple fix it.

Re:Nice (1)

StarKruzr (74642) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770232)

They COULD just secure the baseband better and let people do whatever they wanted to with the OS.

Re:Nice (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769006)

The Nintendo DS has a nice RSA Protected sticker on the bottom, but that didn't stop me from installing Linux. They can install all the crypto and DRM in the world on a device. Unfortunately for them, they all have processors and they have to start executing machine code from memory. All kinds of ways to flip bits and get into the system. Its like trying to put up a fence at the border. Don't work. Never did.

Re:Nice (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769220)

The Nintendo DS has a nice RSA Protected sticker on the bottom, but that didn't stop me from installing Linux.

I think the RSA encryption on the DS is only used when playing networked games.

It would have been better to wait (1)

rrkap (634128) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768660)

From a user's perspective, I would have rather had them wait until the 2.0 update came out to release this info so that there would be a hackable version 2.0 available. As it is, it's pretty likely that Apple will fix the vulnerability that these folks have discovered before releasing the new firmware.

Re:It would have been better to wait (2, Insightful)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768812)

The vulnerability affects the bootloader. Apple will NEVER, EVER, EVER replace the bootloader by a user update. Any disruption while replacing the bootloader equals a truly dead iPhone. While we may have come to expect complications with our computers, cell phones are another story. If anything, we'll see an updated bootloader in new phones, but the millions already on the market will still be available to be unlocked. Though, Apple will probably have yet ANOTHER security audit so make sure the 2nd gen iPhone has no cracks for illegal activities.

Re:It would have been better to wait (1)

plover (150551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770058)

*BZZT* Wrong, but thanks for playing. You were spot on until your last line, where you referred to "illegal" activities.

There is absolutely nothing illegal about hacking your iPhone. Nothing. Many of the image problems hackers get come from people associating anything hacking with "illegality". We owe it to ourselves to not perpetuate that foolishness.

Firmware 2.0 (4, Informative)

the_g_cat (821331) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768666)

They hacked firmware 2.0, which will run on current iPhones, there's no mention of new hardware for this stuff...

Blame and shame (0, Flamebait)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768720)

Shame on the hackers! How dare they! They are evil people for breaking the security of the almighty Jobs! Oh, and shame on Jobs, we expect your products to be secure. Wait, Apple are imperfect? [Head asplodes].

Feasable? (4, Interesting)

PolarBearFire (1176791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768764)

This thread is probably going to be full of sofware security bashing, deservedly or not. Let's get something constructive out of this... Anyone know of any way to make software security function the way business people dream of? Namely, only approved code running approved processes. I think given access to the hardware any machine can be "hacked" given enough interest and manpower. Even putting security features in the chips themselves, as I've heard they are developing, will just be a relatively minor roadblock.

Re:Feasable? (2, Informative)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768930)

The best you could do would be to alter the hardware (the actual CPU, not some external module) to verify cryptographic signatures. That would prevent you from accidently loading software like this, but it has it's own problems. For one, you have to stick your cryptographic key on the CPU. If they get compromised, they can't be updated. If they can be updated, then someone who cracks the device can just update to their own key and they are now in charge.

You could have a second CPU, acting as a watchdog, monitor the bus and make sure code is signed, nothing weird is going on, etc. That would be very difficult though.

Your best option that could be implemented now would be sending hashes across the network to verify stuff all the time. Since most people aren't going to have the ability to play man-in-the-middle with the cell phone network, this would be reasonably secure. That said, it would be a pain (especially with 3rd party programs going to be available). It would also tie up the cell network.

What they've done seems quite reasonable to me, for the amount of time it probably took to implement.

Re:Feasable? (2, Insightful)

smallfries (601545) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769508)

Why not some external module? That was the design that the Palladium [wikipedia.org] group came up with to solve this very problem - whitelisting software.

Re:Feasable? (1)

robo_mojo (997193) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768954)

Anyone know of any way to make software security function the way business people dream of? Namely, only approved code running approved processes.
As long as the hardware that the software is running on is in the hands of people you don't trust, then no. Your only hope is to separate the user from the sensitive hardware.

Prefferably with several inches of steel and several armed guards.

But you can't do that reliably with a cell phone, so we get useless gimmicks for security.

Even putting security features in the chips themselves, as I've heard they are developing, will just be a relatively minor roadblock.

Intel actually does this in a way with their microcode updates. I assume it is only a matter of time before chip makers start to plant many (thousands of?) keys into the chips and sell the keys to software publishers. Not that that will last, either, though.

Re:Feasable? (2, Insightful)

BosstonesOwn (794949) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769940)

Microsystems are becoming the end game at the moment , or are being touted as such.

The newest platforms are actually systems on a chip. Not only a watch dog watching the voltage and clock lines , but watch dogs performing zero knowledge tests on blocks of data before they are passed to the considered safe block of ram. It always comes to the same point , the key is on the chip some where. You can randomize and do as much as you want to make the key random , at some point the key has to be stored to even start the boot process.

Some of the newer micros are using a main core like the eco2000 in the case of seimen/infineon 8051 systems and having a watchdog watch the lines , a block decoder/encoder sitting in between passing it to and from the core ram and storing the keys in a small block that is read only under certain conditions met by the block de/enc device, bit settings in protected ram and the state of the eco core. The main issue is the key is still on board. When this happens once you have that you have control.

There really is no way to prevent the system from being hacked when you have to give the secret with the device. The only combat you have is to make it to expensive to hack and therefore take away the reason to do so.

Security by using security mess and UV detectors on the newer security chips are stop gap measures, an interested person will find a way around it. There is no way to secure anything , what is secure now , won't be secure tommorow , and when people have interests you won't lock them out. The only hope again is to stave off the hack long enough to develop another system to take its place when some one figures out the current system. Cat and mouse till the day we die.

A slow death, like the PSP (2, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768786)

Well, I guess the iPhone will die a slow death, the same as the PSP (wait a minute, people are still developing for the PSP ... maybe the iphone won't die?).

Re:A slow death, like the PSP (0, Flamebait)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768808)

Oh wait, It WILL die, but not until apple says so (go planned obsolescence, I choose you!)

Re:A slow death, like the PSP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22769000)

using the "oh wait" meme to reply to yourself = epic fail

on any other platform... (0, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768904)

... this would be called a security vulnerability and if it was MS/Sony you'd all be screaming for a class action. but because it's apple, the fanboys put a spin on it to seem like a good thing.

and another thing - why the fuck waste all this effort on the iphone when there are other devices out there that don't require this hack and patch dick size contest?

No it bloody wouldn't. As you should know. (3, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769222)

on any other platform... this would be called a security vulnerability

No it bloody wouldn't. It would be called "of course you can install your own firmware on an iPaq, or a Treo, or what have you". It would be called "why shouldn't you be able to install programs on your own handset". It would be called "yes, of course that's the way it works".

Of course it's a good thing. Of course it's also a waste of time. Of course you're better off getting a phone where you don't have to screw around looking for DRM backdoors. What I can't figure is how anybody who knows it's a waste of time could possibly be stupid enough to honestly think "this would be called a security vulnerability". Right?

Re:on any other platform... (1)

skingers6894 (816110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769420)

No, no it wouldn't.

I own the phone, I have physical access to it, I WANT to install software on it.

The fact that there is any impediment to me doing that is damned inconvenient, I'll give you that.

But not a security vulnerability.

Again? (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 6 years ago | (#22768960)

Another article on hacked iPhones? Really? Are we going to have this with every update? We already know every update will be hacked.

If so, let me be the first to announce that Windows 7 activation has been cracked.

Linux on iPhone? (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769024)

May this open the door to be able to install linux on the iPhone?

Bill Gates just announced... (4, Funny)

DanWS6 (1248650) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769176)

First person to get windows running on the iphone 2.0 will receive a free copy of Microsoft Vista.

Re:Bill Gates just announced... (3, Funny)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770014)

First person to get windows running on the iphone 2.0 will receive a free copy of Microsoft Vista.
The second person will receive two copies of Microsoft Vista.

let me get this straight (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769228)

now even hackers are releasing vaporware?

Big f---ing deal ! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22769396)

I am completely sick of seeing Slashdot news about some equipment getting hacked. Big f...ing deal! It is a f----ing phone!! If you want to hack, make your own hardware, hack it to death and make news about it. We need a slashdot poll on whether readers really care about iphone hacks.

NOT firmware 2.0 (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769402)

Slashdot got the story late, you'd think they'd get it right. The leaked firmare that dev team has hacked is firmware 1.2

Re:NOT firmware 2.0 (1)

freedumb2000 (966222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770262)

And all along I was most impressed by the fact that they hacked a firmware version that hadn't been released yet.

Re:NOT firmware 2.0 (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770324)

I think you're being funny... but technically, 1.2 isn't released yet, afaik, not even to most Apple devs for beta testing. But what is most interesting about the whole thing is that Apple, undoubtedly, has a major leak (unless the whole thing is a ruse to promote viral marketing).

unpatchable? (2, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769596)

I keep reading they hacked the firmware. So what's to stop Apple from releasing a firmware update that breaks it? They release firmware updates for their computers periodically. Firmware is not impossible to upgrade.

Why doesn't Apple just release a Dev platform? (3, Interesting)

SleepyHappyDoc (813919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769662)

They could bring out something similar in specs, unlocked, able to run unsigned code, etc, all the capabilities the hacking community wants but sufficiently different in some way to distinguish it from the standard iphone (Bulkier, to add more connections, maybe?). Market it at a huge enough price difference that AT&T doesn't get upset, and everyone would be happy.

The real problem with the iPhone (1)

initialE (758110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22769710)

The way I see it is that for once, His Steveness had lost faith in his ability to sell his product at their actual price. The deals made with the various telcos were mainly cost-cutting measures, to be made up by the profit-sharing model, leading to the locking of phones, and to the current situation. Who knows, if he had tried to sell a $1000 iPhone, and people still bought it up, and installed whatever software they wanted, then maybe the production cost of iPhone 2.0 might have gone down by now, and an iPhone would be in everyone's pocket.

Jailbreak is the only way to test programs (5, Insightful)

dougwhitehead (573106) | more than 6 years ago | (#22770072)

Given that Apple is slow to approve developers, the only way to test your OpenGL ES program is to Jailbreak the iPhone.

You are supposed to test your program with the iPhone Simulator, called Aspen. The Aspen simulator is part of the free download SDK for the iPhone. However, Aspen does not support OpenGL ES, which is hardware acceleration for cool effects & fast 2D or 3D.

To deploy to the iPhone, Apple must give you a certificate, and they only do that to those paid developers whom they select.

In other words, most game developers can not test their programs because they can not deploy their programs to the iPhone.

I want to play around/learn. I have avoided Jailbreak solutions to date, but I see no other way.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>