Apple Blocking iPhone Security Software 148
Barence writes "Speaking exclusively to PC Pro, Eugene Kaspersky has claimed Apple has repeatedly refused to deliver the software development kit necessary to design security software for the phone. 'We have been in contact for two years with Apple to develop our anti-theft software, [but] still we do not have permission,' said Kaspersky. Although he admits the risk of viruses infecting the iPhone is 'almost zero,' he claims that securing the data on the handset is critical, especially as iPhones are increasingly being used for business purposes. 'I don't want to say Apple's is the wrong way of behaving, or the right way,' Kaspersky added. 'It's just a corporate culture — it wants to control everything.'"
At least good news ! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Having tried the iPhone, I think it's a decent gadget, but it's not fast enough to be able to take performance hits from inefficient security suites.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If there's anything we learned from the PC universe, it's that many people would rather have viruses run transparently in the background than have their machines slow to a crawl because of overbearing security suites that often don't even identify proper threats.
That's a very interesting point. Virus used to wreak havoc on the targeted computer and destroy files, reboot the machine, etc... Nowadays, all that they hope for is to be able to steal stealthily a few percent of resources and bandwidth. About the same as the antivirus except he is not very stealthy about it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
f there's anything we learned from the PC universe, it's that many people would rather have viruses run transparently in the background than have their machines slow to a crawl because of overbearing security suites that often don't even identify proper threats.
I'm not sure what PC universe you spend time in, but in mine most users prefer both. They love to run the overbearing security suites because then they *know* they're secure, and don't have to worry about all those weird other things running transparently in the background.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even the worst of it. The worst of it is that in order for Kaspersky's suite to do anything useful, you'd have to give it full access to the machine. If you give it full access to the machine, suddenly you're *less* secure, because you installed a "security app." So not only do your batteries last a quarter as long, you'll probably get a virus you couldn't have got otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving Kaspersky out is the first interesting feature I see in this whole Apple App Store scheme !
Kaspersky has to wait in line with the rest of us to get at portions of the iPhone API's that aren't "public" or blessed by Apple. Their situation isn't even remotely unique.
Re:At least good news ! (Score:4, Funny)
Why? Kaspersky has some of the best products.
Eugene, is that you ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
NOD32.
Owns Kaspersky in every test i try.
We already have an anti-virus (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:We already have an anti-virus (Score:4, Informative)
We have been in contact for two years with Apple to develop our anti-theft software...
I know lots of people never RTFA, but you couldn't even get through the summary? Here's your sign.
Re:We already have an anti-virus (Score:4, Insightful)
The iPhone has enterprise tools available for anti-theft, too. It can encrypt all data by default and remotely wipe the device, and even end users can get the GPS coordinates of the device if they have MobileMe.
Their control of the App Store is abusing and ridiculous, but i don't see a lack of anti-theft features here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, doesn't change the fact that he was clueless what the article was about.
Re:We already have an anti-virus (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the iPhone has similar functionality built in doesn't mean 3rd party vendors shouldn't be able to compete. I happen to be writing this comment with Firefox on a machine that came with IE already....
Apple doesn't want to give developers access to the API's to do things like remote wipe. So they either block everyone from doing it or they make an exception for certain vendors. Apple isn't very big on making exceptions for any external company, even Google gets the choice of doing it the Apple way or hitting the highway. Nobody seems to mind in this case except the anti-virus cartel who are seeing their core market melt way now Windows is becoming secure and they don't have a foothold in this decade's growth market, mobile devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, so that's why all the bikini applications got pulled from the App Store(TM) but Playboy and Sports illustrated are still in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple dosn't see it that way [intomobile.com]. They openly reject competition with Apple software on the iPhone.
Re:We already have an anti-virus (Score:4, Informative)
Man, you obviously don't deal in the real world or at least in large org.
Google for a couple of mins and you find that the "encryption" on the latest iPhone 3GS has already been broken.
There's no proper central management of the device; the iPhone has to be tethered.
If you set some settings on the device, there's nothing stopping the user from changing configuration again.
So it's fine for you if you want to keep some personal contacts and maybe your shopping list; it's nowhere near the level one would expect it to be used in the financial or government sectors.
That's why RIM and BES reign supreme in that area.
I wish Apple would wise up; lord knows I deal constantly with "senior managers" who want to use their toys at our hospital.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Two words: Good Technology.
Works on iPhone, Android and WebOS.
Disclaimer: I do NOT work for Good technology, but was recently asked to research the use of iPhone, WebOS and Droid in my company's enterprise environment and Good is pretty much the very best of the best out there from what I could tell.
Of course, your mileage may vary.
Re:We already have an anti-virus (Score:5, Interesting)
It can encrypt all data by default and remotely wipe the device, and even end users can get the GPS coordinates of the device if they have MobileMe.
I know this, because I work for an iPhone nut.
If you're a business user, you're using Exchange 2007 with ActiveSync to remotely manage the iPhone and deliver email. If you've got a wish to drive yourself insane, you're also using MobileMe on that same device.
MobileMe has some neat features, but quite frankly it's complete bullshit that those features (Find my iPhone et. al.) are mutually exclusive from a phone with an ActiveSync binding. MobileMe + ActiveSync is highly discouraged by all of the Apple support reps I've spoken with, and to date, my boss has had nothing but nightmares involving the combination of the two.
Re: (Score:2)
"MobileMe + ActiveSync is highly discouraged by all of the Apple support reps I've spoken with, and to date, my boss has had nothing but nightmares involving the combination of the two."
Getting those two to work together is as easy as controlling two computers with Synergy.
Boss needs to be fired if he's not that competent.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting those two to work together is as easy as controlling two computers with Synergy.
It's interesting that you chose Synergy as your example. Synergy is a royal pain in the ass to configure for all but the most logical and technical minded people.
For a user who doesn't understand how contacts are stored, where they come from, or why they end up getting duplicated (or at least appear to be that way) without making a really stupid car analogy that won't actually transfer back to referenced analogous use of the device... I'll presume you get the idea.
It just doesn't work or behave the way
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto on Exchange + Mobileme being very easy to manage together. I even have a couple of CalDAVs in there.
Work stuff goes into Exchange, personal stuff into Mobileme, nothing stored locally. Don't put your personal contacts into Outlook and all will be well.
Re: (Score:2)
It just doesn't fall into the "ZOMG I'm a moron and this iPhone is just so intuitive" setup that the phone generally has.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the rub. Why would Apple allow a $5 or $20 app on the AppStore that negates the only other way to remote wipe or track your iPhone?
Here's the answer: $90/year subscriptions to MobileMe
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"The iPhone has enterprise tools available for anti-theft, too. "
Every single one of them useless the moment I turn off the phone and clip the antenna wires so it can't get a signal or just add more wire to completely fuck the antenna. Then it's free reign and I can take all the time I want breaking the encryption.
Been there, done that, give me something that's actually new and interesting. I have many friends with iPhones and they're always bringing them to me. Anything Apple can do I've already got circum
Re: (Score:2)
Here's your sign, pal. Software won't stop me from JACKING THE FUCKING PHONE FROM YOUR HANDS (what REAL theft entails) after I pound your face in.
Anti-theft is a misnomer and bullshit - Anti-data breach would be more appropriate.
Hope that sign isn't too heavy around your neck, I know it's a mighty big one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Two words: browser exploits.
Re: (Score:2)
Another two: SMS exploits [cnet.com]
There is also a lot of iPhone software that phones home, and here's the problem, the app store as a security measure is a complete and utter myth. The app store is NOT about security, it does not make you magically protected. It's also worth noting that Apple boasts about having hundreds of thousands applications on it's app store- is anyone really naive enough to believe that Apple is capable of doing a full security audit on each and every one of these applications?
The app st
Re:We already have an anti-virus (Score:4, Insightful)
The app store is NOT about security, it does not make you magically protected.
The app store is about Apple's guaranteed 30% cut.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the iPhone isn't the only phone you can buy and thus you don't have to put up with the rules Apple sets for it's App store unless you choose to buy an iPhone. Thus your analogy falls completely apart.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Their control of the App Store and anti-jailbreaking measures are because of one reason: Apple wants to avoid bad publicity.
When there was this rash of rickrolled iPhones a few months back, most media reported it, but very few mentioned that it only affected jail broken phones. Apple wants to avoid getting into the news like that, because their brand is the most important asset they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because none of those apps could possibly have a bug that would allow malicious code to be installed...
Re: (Score:2)
Let me introduce you to three words: Local privilege exploit.
And by the way, Mr. Jobs fellater, someone who suggests the possibility that a virus could infect an iPhone isn't an "apple-hater". It's called being "realistic".
However Spyware on the iPhone is rife (Score:5, Informative)
this guy created a whole site because of the problem and the iPhones inability to block/stop such behaviour
http://i-phone-home.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Re:However Spyware on the iPhone is rife (Score:4, Insightful)
However Spyware on the iPhone is rife
That's not a bug, that's a feature.
The whole point of locking down hardware (at least on a mobile platform) is to create a captive audience.
Re:However Spyware on the iPhone is rife (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason he had to jailbreak his iPhone, no doubt, is because otherwise it would have been completely impossible to write a firewall for it, or to hide the phone’s UDID.
How about you actually read his blog? The apps he was testing are from the AppStore...
Or how about this one, which not only reports your UDID but also your phone number:
Re: (Score:2)
And not unique to the iPhone, since there are APIs to get the same thing off of every other phone out there - Android, Blackberry, Symbian, Windows Mobile, and probably Windows Phone as well. APIs like getting the phone number and/or IMEI, software versio
Re:However Spyware on the iPhone is rife (Score:5, Insightful)
User tracking, targeted advertisements, etc.
Just recently, the EFF showed that [eff.org] seemingly-innocuous information is probably enough to uniquely identify you from the hundreds of thousands or millions of visitors to a particular site. And that’s not even on the same playing field as a vendor-assigned unique device ID.
You know who else has your phone number? EVERYONE.
No. Nobody has my phone number except the people I’ve given it to.
AT&T has your phone number too...where is the uproar?
And I’m pretty sure they can’t sell it to 3rd parties without my consent.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd better read it again (like I just did). To me, the site is quite agnostic toward jail-breaking, and is no less useful to someone with a non-jailbroken device. I believe I feel the same way about jailbreaking as you do (currently not considering jailbreaking my device, fairly sure I'll never do it), but as another poster has said: There's not a chance in hell that Apple have properly audited all the application for security, and it's flat out impossible they'd be able to do so adequately anyway (they don't audit the source). The App Store is not about that at all.
Apple may not audit the source but they do have analysis tools [appleinsider.com] to scan for the use of non-public APIs. This provides some security but everything you can do with the public API's will not get checked, unfortunately this includes phoning home some information (because there are times when this behavior is wanted.) So this guy should be applauded for taking the time to check a lot of applications for this kind of behavior and shaming the ones that do.
No shock (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would apple want to allow someone to create and market direct competition for it's own anti-theft service (MobileMe)?
Re:No shock (Score:4, Interesting)
Note: IANAL
Re: (Score:2)
I would think it would be possible for a lawyer to make the claim that if Apple's product broke causing the loss, AND that Apple actively blocked --potentially-- better products from working, that they then assumed liability for any damage their original product failed to protect.
Based on exactly what statutory or case law do you base this assertion on?
Re: (Score:2)
No, they aren't. You do not assume responsibility for anything just because someone would like you to do something and you choose not to. Apple would have to deliberately or at least constructively assume responsibility for the data. It's plausable a class-action could attempt to claim the product failed to deliver on features the consumer rea
Re: (Score:2)
(Since you had no choice in the first place)?
Android?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought only hardcore fanboys use MobileMe. Everyone else realized Hundred Bucks per year is a bit steep. Especially with other companies offering similar services for less or free.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a bit of a difference between having money and being willing to p*ss it away all over the place.
The latter tends to interfere with the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they want another app in the background using the phone's resources to duplicate the functionality of MobileMe? Good question.
It's not like this app would be functional if it only ran in the foreground.
Yet another guy whining because he has a shitty concept for an app with no user benefit that has been rejected. That there exist other shitty apps on the app store doesn't make his any better or warrant an exception by Apple.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why doesn't Microsoft forbid Firefox and OO.org teams from using Windows SDK?
Kaspersky's not blocked from using the SDK, he can use the same one all other developers are using and can use the same APIs. He could even call private APIs and run his software on his own device, it would just mean he couldn't sell it through the appstore.
Re: (Score:2)
I fully understand Apple's stance here - Microsoft has a similar one with respect to internal Windows kernel functions that are exposed to outside callers for some technical reasons.
I was, rather, replying specifically to GGP's claim that Apple is morally in the right to forcibly prevent third-party development for its platform if it competes with its own services.
Re: (Score:2)
I was, rather, replying specifically to GGP's claim that Apple is morally in the right to forcibly prevent third-party development for its platform if it competes with its own services.
I see. That's just Apple's philosophy: the iphone isn't hard- or software to them but a combination of both plus the way the user interacts with its basic functions. You may think it's bullshit but as Kaspersky himself points out there are plenty of people out there willing to sell you a device with a different philosophy. I don't know why people have such a sense of entitlement when it comes to iPhone development. Just move to a different platform, enjoy that luxury that wasn't there for such a long time o
Re: (Score:2)
Where in this story is it mentioned that anyone is forbidden from using an SDK? Kaspersky was whining that there was no SDK delivered that would aid in developing 3rd party security software. Not that he was forbidden from using some existing SDK. Maybe next time you should read the summary more than once in order to actual comprehend it?
We already have something like that (Score:2, Interesting)
Good Mobile Messaging will do what Kaspersky's trying to do - control the handsets on an administrative level. You lose your iPhone? Administrator remotely wipes your unit.
Mind you, I don't have nor want one of these toys, but it works great across our WinMo and Android fleet...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you get the finder to say OK when the phone ask to be wiped?
Create a dialog with two buttons, "YES" and "NO". Wipe the phone regardless of which button is clicked :-)
Re: (Score:2)
And Apple can not allow anyone else to be able to do that. Remember the marketing, it's not "your Iphone" it's "your Apple Iphone", just so you remember who really owns it.
it wants to control everything (Score:5, Informative)
...which is one way of preventing malware, it's working pretty well so far for that platform.
Re: (Score:2)
"it wants to control everything"
So does Microsoft...
...which is one way of preventing malware, it's working pretty well so far for that platform.
Mmmkay...
Re: (Score:2)
So does Microsoft...
Not really. Microsoft in the early days turned a blind eye to rampant piracy of its software in order to gain marketshare. The entire Microsoft model of creating software than runs on everyone else's hardware is not about control, it's about network effects.
Microsoft obviously has bullied hardware OEMs and other companies, engaged in FUD, and so on. But from its sloppy user experience to its "slap this OS on any hardware you can" mentality, Microsoft's idea of control is not the same a
Re:it wants to control everything (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on your definition of malware. Spyware is rife on the app store. Pinch Media's analytics tracking is all over the app store.. more than 30 million downloads contained their tracking software... at least according to Pinch Media itself.
Here is everything that apps with pinch media analytics are sending to them:
Your iPhones unique ID, iPhone model and OS version, application info, whether or not the iphone is jailbroken, whether or not the application is pirated, time & date you start and stop the application, your current latitude & longitude, and if facebook is installed on your iphone, your gender and birthday.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong way of behaving (Score:5, Informative)
I don't want to say Apple's is the wrong way of behaving
Well, I do. It’s the wrong way of behaving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While we're at it .... (Score:2)
I'd like to add that Kaspersky's worthless method of validating their desktop PC client's anti-virus subscription's expiry date is "the wrong way of behaving" too!
We have their corporate AV product where I work, and every few weeks, I get a phone call from at least someone who says their anti-virus stopped updating, and keeps popping up a warning about "black.lst" being missing or corrupt. I wind up forcing a manual refresh from the server console and eventually, it realizes it IS still a legally licensed
"Kernel docs", not just a normal SDK? (Score:2, Interesting)
until tethering (Score:1)
Oh wait, that won't happen either.
*returns ipad
Just say "no". (Score:5, Insightful)
The antivirus companies have been pushing antivirus software for handheld devices since 1999.
In the succeeding decade... so far as I'm aware... the damage caused by viruses on handhelds, ALL handhelds, has been less than the damage due to one false positive incident caused by Norton Antivirus shortly after the pointless hubbub over the Palm "Phage" malware.
Antivirus software for handhelds... just say "no".
Re: (Score:2)
False positives suck. Antivirus software is also virtually useless for all but the very oldest viruses. I went through a long process of reporting a virus going to my customers several times per minute. It took 6 months to get the big three I wanted to list the virus to actually list it. 6 months.
This whole signature based BS has got to stop. Frequent false positives (and they happen all the time) aren't even the worst thing about this "technology."
Probably not anti-security as much as SOP (Score:2)
The likelihood of Apple ever really changing this is probably next to zero, and it's the main reason I have no interest in the iPhone. What use is a computer in my pocket when I either need to use one program that is complex enough to handle every task I could possible need, or I need to make my tasks so simple that no data need ever be shared between two tools?
butthurt (Score:5, Insightful)
It appears that Kaspersky is butthurt because it sees a potential market for more crap we don't need and the controllers of that market don't want, and have the ability to lock them out of that market.
From Apple's point of view, they have remote wipe on both the corporate and personal levels already. And having somebody inside your shorts providing duplicate functionality is fail from top to bottom. I'm surprised that apple even answered the phone when they saw who was calling.
Also Kaspersky can have the SDK anytime they want, it's free. They will have to pay $99 to actually deploy the apps though. What they want is a super special "inside your shorts" SDK that I'd bet isn't coming anytime soon.
Sheldon
Actually, I'm undecided on this. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm undecided on whether this particular behavior on Apple's part is a bad thing (as opposed to other cases, like the Google Voice one, where I'm sure it's a bad thing, and the Opera Mini one, where I'm at least leaning that way).
On desktops, it seems to me that various web ads or email messages encouraging users to install some third-party "security tool" are a major infection vector for malware/spyware. Many, many of the sorts of people who buy Apple products -- and I say this as an Apple user myself -- are... not the sorts of people who routinely make informed decisions about computer security.
Certainly, if third parties are permitted to sell iPhone security software, one might reasonably want them to be subject to considerably more oversight than other software, because of the potential for damage. Again, not because the software is "magic" or other software can't behave badly, but because of the particular ways most real-world users brains just shut down when dealing with security issues. Most people really don't have the mindset for this stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Spyware and port monitoring software is something different. Programs like Spybot and the like can be implemented without seriously degrading the user experience. My question i
A solution looking for a problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
This "software" could not be ordinary software but would rather require Apple opening up the OS to third party extensions which ran at a privileged level above the sandboxes. I just don't see that every happening for a couple of reasons.
1. The Kaspersky software itself could have exploitable flaws and given that it would be running at a higher privilege level than regular apps, that opens up a new attack vector for web based exploits to use.
2. Such software would potentially slow the OS down and cause a significant battery drain for no real gain of protection.
Much has been made about FUD articles that say that other apps can access contacts without asking for permission. No shit sherlock. That is a "feature" of the official API and the app approval process is supposed to ferret out nefarious uses of contact lists. I would hate to see UAC style boxes for apps each time I wanted to see a contact list in a third party app.
Mod AC up (Score:2)
Allowing their software on the iPhone would require destroying the existing security model and it opens up vectors for malware/trojan horses to install at the same privilege level where your iPhone could become a node o a botnet.
good riddance (Score:2)
'I don't want to say Apple's is the wrong way of behaving, or the right way,' Kaspersky added. 'It's just a corporate culture -- it wants to control everything.'"
- look who is talking. A guy, whose entire success (his and the wife's) is based on pretty much a monopoly set up in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet block by Microsoft.
Waiting for multitasking (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is probably waiting until they implement multitasking in the next OS [slashdot.org], so that they can have Kaspersky's software constantly running in the background constantly using 50% of the CPU to block malware.
No, see this AC's post for why it will never happen:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1579552&cid=31446920 [slashdot.org]
Opening things up for Kaspersky would cause a need for their software but the current state of lock down means that there is no need for their software on the iPhone platform. I don't want to see kernel level access for third party developers on the iPhone ever.
Not necessarily "corporate culture" (Score:2)
I think it's something else. Well, two things, actually:
First, I think that Apple wants to keep the word "virus" and the word "iPhone" from being any more linked in the consumer's mind than they have to be. If a range of anti-virus tools becomes available for the iPhone, then it implicitly says that viruses are something you need to be co
Good riddance (Score:2)
I don't want rubbish anti-virus software on a smartphone. They cripple the performance of the device.
I don't care if I get a virus on my phone, I can restore it back to a backup easily. It's not like I'm going to loose valuable work.
Re:Nothing to see here folks (Score:5, Insightful)
This is more about the closed nature of the App Store more than the necessity (or lack thereof) for a security app. In fact, the sporadic and seemingly hypocritical nature of Apple's approval process alone is reason enough for me to not get an iPhone (being stuck on AT&T and having no hardware keyboard are the other two reasons...although I could look past those two if it meant anyone could had an app put up for download.)
Granted, you can jailbreak an iPhone and install whatever you want, but I shouldn't have to hack a phone just so I can use whatever program I want on it. Being held to Apple's decision on what I can or can't use on there is a deal breaker for me.
Re: (Score:2)
While AT&T are bad verizon is just as bad if not worse. Ihave watched verizons 3G network slow to a crawl.
To date the spyware and hacks that have been succesful only target jail broken phones. Why because people are stupid and install things wrong.
With apples current approach the buck stops with apple. If an approved app or other malicous software does hit the mass iPhone population apple becomes the only company to blame. Unlike the recent windows virus found on HTC models where HTC can blame any one
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While AT&T are bad verizon is just as bad if not worse. Ihave watched verizons 3G network slow to a crawl.
You say that with no context as to where you live, which is very important. Because where I am, AT&T just turned on 3G less than six months ago, and it's slower than Verizon's which has been on for two years, and hasn't slowed down a bit since I got my Droid.
Re: (Score:2)
While AT&T are bad verizon is just as bad if not worse. Ihave watched verizons 3G network slow to a crawl.
You say that with no context as to where you live, which is very important. Because where I am, AT&T just turned on 3G less than six months ago, and it's slower than Verizon's which has been on for two years, and hasn't slowed down a bit since I got my Droid.
Says the guy who didn't post where he lives...
Overall, AT&T's 3G coverage is faster than Verizon's. In specific places, such as where AT&T *doesn't* have 3G coverage, or where coverage isn't terribly good, then Verizon's may be faster. But all told, AT&T takes the 3G speed crown in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
"Overall, AT&T's 3G coverage is faster than Verizon's."
Really? I doubt that, considering AT&T's network has been clogged and hasn't expanded much for the past decade while Verizon has been constantly expanding.
Oh, and I never got more than 50K/s in NY on AT&T 3G network - never under 122K/s with Verizon 3G. Here in California, it's almost the exact same issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but I don't live in LA, I live an hour and a half away, out in the boonies/desert. Maybe 50K population, if that. Overpopulated is a huge misstatement for this area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AT&T speeds are generally faster than Verizon in my area, but the reception of AT&T phones around where I live is absolutely horrendous...based on what friends who have the iPhone have told me, there are TONS of dead spots around here (Montgomery County, Maryland...hardly the boonies.)
I will gladly take a slow network over spotty network coverage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While AT&T are bad verizon is just as bad if not worse. Ihave watched verizons 3G network slow to a crawl.
You trade speed for coverage between AT&T and Verizon. Just like there are tradeoffs between an iPhone or an Android phone or Blackberry. Decide based on the features you want which is best for you personally.
To date the spyware and hacks that have been succesful only target jail broken phones. Why because people are stupid and install things wrong.
But this isn't an anti-hacking application, so that doesn't apply. This is an anti-theft applications. You know, in case your phone is stolen.
So why not approve it? I can think of two reasons:
1) Does things beyond the API or agreement allows, particularly with encryption.
2) Apple provides a
Re: (Score:2)
But this isn't an application that was submitted to Apple and denied, so these don't apply either. Kaspersky never claimed that they ever wrote or submitted an application. All they have said is that Apple has not provided them with an SDK. Now this might be because
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"With apples current approach the buck stops with apple."
No, it actually stops with ME. I can exploit the iPhone OS software and all it takes is you connecting to my Wireless AP. Already having fun pissing off people that come to my house and realize their iPhone QUIT WORKING.
Apple better let those guys get security software made, or Apple is not going to be happy when I sell my exploit.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is probably the exact reason why Apple is both controlling the App Store and making it hard to jailbreak iPhones. Their image is everything, their primary mission is to avoid bad PR.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, the worst "malware" for the Mac can email you and call you! If that was the worst thing that PC malware did, companies like Norton and McAfee would be out of business overnight.
I can't seem to find a link to it now (so maybe I'm wrong), but I thought Apple blocked at least one of the apps where the developer actually called someone. I know the storm8 example you listed has been fixed.
if Apple allows it, it's clearly not malware.
That's absurd. Apple has a process in place to both remove from the store, and if the app is truly egregious, remove rem
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm sure in due time we'll have iNorton and all of the iPhones will be safe from this kinda stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has already gone through at least one cycle of making desirable, well-made products to nearly getting out of the hardware business altogether because their stuff was crappy and then back again to making decent goods. At the moment, they rushing headlong into territory that Sony has staked out, of being a company that makes some decent products that discerning people won't touch.
I don't think it will surprise anyone if they have to go through the cycle again.
Re: (Score:2)