iPhone, iPod Touch 1.1.1 Firmwares Jailbroken

vertigoCiel writes "Hackers Niacin and Dre have recently gained full read and write access to the filesystems of both the iPhone and the iPod Touch. The Jailbreak exploits a vulnerability in Safari's TIFF library to execute the necessary code when the specially crafted image is loaded. Access can then be permanently sustained by modifying the fstab file with iPhuc"

Makes me wonder

[Dunbal (464142)]

I wonder if Apple are going to keep playing "cat and mouse", and try to bring legal action to bear against these "vile hackers", or if they're going to take the hint that you can't stop us all? Clearly there's a demand for unlocked iPhones.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Aladrin (926209)]

What 'hint'? They are under legal obligation to maintain their firmware so that the phones can't be used on other networks for another 5 years. They are also under obligation to their customers to provide firmware for their phone that is as bug-free as possible. If the user can hack it, a malicious attacker can, too.

So are you saying that they shouldn't patch the vulnerabilities, that they shouldn't release new firmware at all, or that they should break their contract with AT&T which could make every iPhone out there useless overnight unless it is hacked?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Threni (635302)]

> They are under legal obligation to maintain their firmware so that the phones can't be used on other networks for another 5 years.

In some countries the exact opposite is true!

For Example: Soviet Union and South Korea

[Johnny Mozzarella (655181)]

In the Soviet Union the firmware is under legal obligation to maintain you for 5 years.

In South Korea only old people maintain their firmware.

I'd just like to point out

[SpiritGod21 (884402)]

Apple's firmware division is not in charge of Gundam.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Reality Master 101 (179095)]

But they're not under any obligation to prevent third party applications. That's just greed. They want to eventually sell only licensed third party apps.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Aladrin (926209)]

I don't know what their contract says with AT&T, but that might very well be on there. Something to the tune of 'only tested and approved applications'.

But even assuming it's not a contractual obligation, Apple announced they weren't going to allow third-party apps weeks before the first iPhone was sold. It wasn't a surprise and anyone who bought it with the intent of hacking it and putting their own apps on it did so at their own risk.

I've bought devices, used 'hacks' on them, and did other things with them. But I did so with each of them with the complete understanding of how much money I could lose if anything happened that I couldn't control. In fact, while I was soldering one, my father was in the other room saying comforting things like 'That's a $300 mistake.' Turns out, he was almost right on that one... I barely managed to fix it.

Anyone complaining about Apple updating their firmware has rocks in their head. It's what they do, it's what they said they'll do, and nobody ought to be surprised that they'll do it.

If you want an open phone, there are several on the market or very close to market that will work MUCH better and the companies will support you in creating the apps. There's no need to hack the iPhone and Apple has cheated no one.

Re:Makes me wonder

[visualight (468005)]

If you want an open phone, there are several on the market or very close to market that will work MUCH better and the companies will support you in creating the apps. There's no need to hack the iPhone and Apple has cheated no one.

My opinion on this is that it is unethical and should be illegal for ANY phone on the market to be restricted to a network, or restricted in available applications based solely on who gets paid. It's bad enough that companies have framed the software market so that products you "buy" aren't yours but licensed, they want the same paradigm with hardware too. It's bullshit, and it shouldn't be tolerated just because someone else sells uncrippled hardware.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Inanition85 (984138)]

Thing is, most anytime you buy a cell phone, you're buying both the hardware and the network, not one or the other. It's just like the verizon commercials where the "network" (crowd of people) follows around those who just bought their phones, you don't get one without the other. While this may seem to be "unfair" or "unethical", remember that in a free market economy, any time someone sees a market they can go into and make a profit, they will. In this case, the major manufacturers of phones and major carriers have seen a market that they can make a profit on in a certain way and are doing so.

Another thing, this really isn't so different from what most hardware manufacturers do. If you buy most video cards or processors/mobos (certain high end/hardcore gamer models excepted, of course), the licensing and warrantees say that if you attempt to modify the hardware or use it beyond its specs (i.e. overclocking either in hardware or with hacked drivers), the warrantee is void. And in further comparison, are not certain pieces of hardware locked to certain OSs or manufacturers? (I'm thinking the reversed PCI cards and mobos on Gateway PCs of a few years back, or the fact that most Compaq and HP pcs of the past have had entirely proprietary hardware that cannot be replaced with standard components.) Even Apple themselves (until recently) would not support or even officially allow Windows to run on their PCs (and they still do not allow their OS to run on IBM-compatible PCs, anything not made by Apple won't run it). How is this that different from the iPhone?

Nothing I've seen in the PC or cell phone markets should lead me to believe that what Apple is doing with the iPhone is any different that what every other company does with their products (including the price cut). What a shock, Apple is a company just like everyone else! So maybe the iPhone has some amzaing capabilities and we'd like it to be unlocked so we can exploit these as we'd like, but Apple makes the device, and can sell it as they see fit. If you don't like that, maybe it's time for you to either run for Congress and change the laws, or go and create a device that's as good (or better) on your own. Either way you'll be contributing more to society than sitting on /. and repeatedly posting about how bad this is. And lest you call me a hypocrit, I'm in law school taking copyright classes and the like, so that perhaps I might be able to make a difference when finished.

Re:Makes me wonder

[ZachPruckowski (918562)]

I've bought devices, used 'hacks' on them, and did other things with them. But I did so with each of them with the complete understanding of how much money I could lose if anything happened that I couldn't control.

Anyone complaining about Apple updating their firmware has rocks in their head. It's what they do, it's what they said they'll do, and nobody ought to be surprised that they'll do it.

All true. Expecting Apple to support hacked models with new firmware is a bit silly. The iPhone updater completely re-flashes the iPod, and then re-adds the data from iTunes. So any update will at least wipe Apps, unless Apple does special work to preserve them.

But just as importantly, there's nothing saying you "have to" update the firmware. It's voluntary. Sure, you've got to if you want the bugfixes and new features, but that's hardly mandatory. Users can continue to use the 1.0.2 firmware for as long as they want to, or until there's some sort of iPhone virus out there.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Rogerborg (306625)]

Apple are supposed to be the "good" guys to their fanbase

Apple regularly bitch-slap their fanbase like 2-bit whores. And still they come crawling back for more, whispering "It's not them, it's me. Apple will change, if I just love them enough," through their split, swollen lips. It's sad, is what it is.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

What 'hint'? They are under legal obligation to maintain their firmware so that the phones can't be used on other networks for another 5 years.

I could sign a specially-worded contract putting me under legal obligation to learn how to breathe margarine and turn the moon into a Buick, but it doesn't mean I'll be able to in practice.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Atzanteol (99067)]

But you *would* be under legal obligation to *try*.

Re:Makes me wonder

[Richard_at_work (517087)]

I currently have an O2 contract phone (W810i - very pleased with both phone and network) and my contract is coming up for renewal at about the same time as the iPhone will be released. As you can guess, my decision is now slightly more complicated:

• iPhone for £269.00 and 18 month contract for £35 a month:
  • 200 minutes and 200 texts a month
  • Unlimited (within reason) data
  • Free wifi access at the Cloud access points
• N95 for free and 18 month contract for £30 a month:
  • 400 minutes and 200 texts a month
  • Better featured phone
  • 200MB data a month for extra £7.50 a month or unlimited data for an extra £30 a month

The iPhone deal comes to £899 total and the N95 deal comes to £675.

Quite frankly, the *only* reason the iPhone is even still in the running is because of the inclusive data and wifi at the moment - and even then I am still heavily leaning toward the N95 with the 200MB data allowance.

Thoughts?

Re:Makes me wonder

[Gilmoure (18428)]

iPhone is really pretty?

Re:Makes me wonder

[itsdapead (734413)]

I currently have an O2 contract phone (W810i - very pleased with both phone and network)

So why do you feel compelled to get a new one?

Personally, I'd give it another year before going iPhone and see what the second-gen ones are like (esp. with respect to 3G/HSPDA which may have been a defensible decision in the US but its a bit of a joke in the UK).

As other posters have said, if you're going for a new not-iPhone then T-Mobile do much better "unlimited" data deals.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MrHanky (141717)]

The terms of the contract, according to the Mac community, is that whenever there is something annoying with the phone -- bricking, restricted access of all sorts -- it's AT&T's fault. This also goes for the ipod touch, which features the exact same restrictions.

Re:Makes me wonder

[MightyYar (622222)]

Well, in this case closing down the iPhone will actually end up making it more secure... A bug in the TIFF library that allows some kind of code to execute sounds like a pretty serious security vulnerability. By locking down the iPhone, Apple has made it attractive to hackers of the non-malicious sort. They have found a vulnerability that Apple will now presumably have to plug, making the iPhone more secure against hackers of the malicious sort.

Of course, they shouldn't have this type of security bug in the first place... one wonders if it isn't also present on the Mac.

Re:Makes me wonder

[AusIV (950840)]

I wonder if Apple are going to keep playing "cat and mouse", and try to bring legal action to bear against these "vile hackers",

On what grounds? People are hacking their own phones, which is explicitly permitted under the DMCA. Link [copyright.gov] (pdf warning). Apple is under no obligation to support it or make it easy, but they can't sue people for unlocking iPhones.

Well

[Deag (250823)]

iphucing love the name

Soubds like alot of work

[by Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be easier to buy an phone/mp3 player that isn't crippled?

Not a long term solution

[uglydog (944971)]

according to the article since the TIFF exploit can be patched. I understand it's a "cat and mouse game", but I was wondering why there can't be a more permanent solution, like creating an image that can be restored using the iTunes Restore function.

This is great news and I'd like to know how do you get started learning how to hack the iPhone? I found stuff that explains how the jail breaking works, but not how it was discovered or what was tried, etc. Blogs, logs, etc would be cool.

Jail Break How-To

[Chris_Stankowitz (612232)]

Reposted from: http://www.iphonealley.com/news/iphone-v1-1-1-jailbreak-apptapp-installation-guide [iphonealley.com]

Jailbreaking Steps

1. Sync and pray
1. Sync your iPhone with iTunes. You'll be losing all of your information, so it's a good idea to back up
2. Downgrade to v1.0.2
1. Hold down the Sleep/Wake and Home buttons at the same time for about 10 seconds. The phone should shut down.
2. When the phone shuts down, release the Sleep/Wake button but continue holding Home
3. Wait until iTunes recognizes the iPhone. The screen will appear to be off, but iTunes will eventually recognize the iPhone. When it does, let go.
4. A message will appear telling you to restore. Click OK
5. Using your favorite browser, download the v1.0.2 software from this location. You may need to rename to .ipsw if it comes as a .zip
6. Back in iTunes, hold Option on the Mac or Shift on the PC while clicking Restore. Navigate to the software you downloaded and select it.
7. The phone will restore, but it will fail. This is normal.
8. Your iPhone should show a yellow triangle. Run Nullriver's AppTapp. It should bring you back to the Activation step on the phone and show an error in the application. Disregard the error.
9. Run AppTapp again and it should succeed.
10. If not using an AT&T SIM, use INdependence to activate your iPhone. That's it!
3. Create Symlink
1. If you haven't already, install Nullriver's AppTapp
2. Go to http://conceitedsoftware.com/iphone/beta [conceitedsoftware.com] in iPhone's Safari. Tap "Yes" to add to Installer
3. Plug iPhone in and open iTunes. Make sure it's recognized before proceeding
4. Using Installer, install "Trip1Prepz" located under "System"
4. Upgrade to v1.1.1
1. In iTunes click "Upgrade" and not Restore. Restoring will ruin our progress.
2. Once upgraded to 1.1.1, close iTunes
5. Jailbreak
1. Download iPHUC and friends from Rapidshare
2. Extract the contents so that iphuc, fstab, and iphonefs are all on the Desktop
3. If you don't have libreadline, download it and extract the zip to your Macintosh HD
4. Open Terminal.app located in Applications>Utilities
5. Type cd ~/Desktop and hit return
6. Type ./iphuc and hit return
7. Type getfile

Re:Great

[ichigo 2.0 (900288)]

Don't patch until there is a working hack for the new patch. And yes, a new hack will always surface.

Re:TIFF image exploit?

[Durzel (137902)]

Well you're almost right.

If it's an image handling vulnerability in IE then the skies are falling and it's featured on the front page of Slashdot.

If the same vulnerability appears in Firefox then it's trivial and automatically "nothing to worry about" simply because it's OSS.

If it's a vulnerability in iPhone then Apple intended it to be there in the first place and it's the users who are mistaken in thinking it was a problem.