Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Iphone Apple

Apple Outs Anti-Jailbreak Update 429

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the longer-than-i'd-expect dept.
Stoobalou writes "Apple has issued an emergency update for devices running the iOS 4 mobile operating system. iOS 4.0.2 plugs the security hole exploited by the iPhone Dev Team to allow pain-free jailbreaking of the iPhone 4 and its manifold siblings as well as... actually, that's about it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Outs Anti-Jailbreak Update

Comments Filter:
  • If jailbreakme can use that exploit then so can someone malicious. Imagine having your phone bricked because you viewed the wrong PDF on some website. The update is a very good thing.

  • by AmazinglySmooth (1668735) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @07:57AM (#33227058)
    I appreciate jailbreaking, but security is more important. What about older devices? Maybe McAfee or Symantec will have a solution.
  • Cellphones. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 12, 2010 @07:57AM (#33227062)

    There are a million of them. Why not buy one you don't have to jailbreak?

    Bet it'd be cheaper too.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 12, 2010 @07:58AM (#33227068)

    ...while the exploit is only used (that we know of) for the jailbreak at this point, it could potentially be used for much worse...to wait for the next more substantial update to patch the exploit would be careless on Apple's part.

  • by MikePikeFL (303907) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:00AM (#33227092)

    Exactly- phrased differently- "A vulnerability actively being exploited in the wild was patched".

    Granted, some of those actively exploiting it were the owners of the devices... but hey. You seriously don't know if it was being exploited by others for financial gain. If they were that good, you'd never know. I'm all for patching the vuln.

  • by Da Fokka (94074) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:02AM (#33227124) Homepage
    It'd be a small miracle if no other security issues have been found since the release of iOS 4. The fact that the jailbreak exploit is the only thing that's being fixed suggests that Apple values retaining control over their device higher than fixing other security issues.
  • Why buy a device that you cannot control?

    Because you can't control the close substitutes that are being sold either. For example, all three major video game consoles are like iPhones in that they need to be jailbroken to run anything interesting [wiibrew.org].

  • by maxume (22995) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:08AM (#33227184)

    This is a massively publicized remote exploit. That is the most critical sort of security issue for an operating system. There is nothing strange about them prioritizing it.

  • by Pojut (1027544) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:09AM (#33227198) Homepage

    Maybe McAfee or Symantec will have a solution.

    nah, I think the vulnerability is bad enough...you're not hoping it would get WORSE, do you?

  • by mdwh2 (535323) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:09AM (#33227200) Journal

    Indeed. And similarly, it was wrong that the original news of the exploit was publicised as a good thing (or, at worst, neutral), rather than being publicised as a major security hole (like you know they would have had it have been something like Internet Explorer).

    Of course, it is a problem that you need to jailbreak an Iphone to enable basic functionality. But if the media has such a problem with that, maybe they could actually focus on that instead of praising Apple all the time, or conflating the issue with security exploits; or maybe give some coverage to the more popular platforms (Symbian, RIM, Android) that don't need to be jailbroken, instead of the overwhelming coverage of Apple all the time.

  • by Kumiorava (95318) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:18AM (#33227260)

    I wouldn't be jailbreaking my iPhone if there was a way to remove SIM lock. Right now Apple & AT&T has forced me into a situation where AT&T won't provide unlock code (asks to go some unlock shop and pay for the unlock) and Apple doesn't really care. Only option is to jailbreak to get blacksn0w running.

    If Steve/government (in many countries in Europe it is mandated that after contract period unlock key is given) would force AT&T to provide unlock codes for everyone out of contract then most of the jailbreaking business would go away.

  • by beelsebob (529313) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:22AM (#33227290)

    It's amazing that slashdot can spin this as anything other than a good thing. Bottom line – the phone had a serious security vulnerability that allowed people to brick/use the phone for various nefarious tasks. Apple fixed it, spinning this as anything other than an important bug fix is downright irresponsible.

  • Re:Cellphones. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MightyYar (622222) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:24AM (#33227306)

    I can think of a few reasons:

    • All of your friends have iPhones and you feel the need to have one as well.
    • You need to feel like you are part of an "in" crowd.
    • You genuinely like the hardware but want to load new software on the device.
    • You genuinely like the hardware AND software but want to run a forbidden application.
    • It works with your car/stereo/home automation system and you have no choice short of losing that functionality.

    There are probably many other reasons. Personally I do not have any kind of smartphone - they are all too big for me. But I do have an iPod touch, and the software is very slick - though strangely it is not a great MP3 player :)

  • by bsDaemon (87307) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:32AM (#33227374)

    In modern parlance, "bricked" means "mildly inconvenienced for about 30 minutes" rather than "made completely inoperable to the point where the hardware is now about as useful as a standard brick" and "zero day" means "sometime within the next 5 years after the actual software was released in the first place."

  • by dogmatixpsych (786818) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:46AM (#33227496) Homepage Journal
    "Of course, it is a problem that you need to jailbreak an Iphone to enable basic functionality."

    If you think jailbreaking is necessary to enable "basic functionality" on an iPhone, I'd love to see what your definition of basic functionality is. I think you meant to write "advanced and technical functionality that relatively few people really need [want]." While I don't have an iPhone, I have an iPod Touch that I use constantly for school, work, and fun. After jailbreaking it to see what the hype was about, I quickly reverted to normal because for me jailbreaking interfered with the functionality of my iPod. Frankly, many (not all) people jailbreak for access to pirated apps. I know that's stereotyping a bit but it is the case for many people.
  • by zerofoo (262795) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:49AM (#33227512)

    Apple,

    4.0.1 is far from perfect - how about addressing a few of the following bugs before worrying about jailbreakers:

    - Poor Bluetooth compatibility. Accessories that worked under iOS3 are flaky (or do not work at all) in iOS4. Lots of BT functions are broken - phone book transfer - switching between audio and handsfree results in no audio, frequent BT disconnects...etc.
    - Occasionally upgrades to 4.0.1 result in poor battery life and excessive operating heat from the device (I have seen this on at least 5 phones). Wiping the device and restoring the phone fixes the issue (in every case so far) - so it's an upgrade problem
    - Pathetic performance on the 3G model. Either make the performance better or exclude the device from further upgrades.
    - Poor radio performance. I have heard a few complaints from my users that cellular radio performance is worse after the iOS4 upgrade. Phones frequently fail-over to Edge when 3G is available on other devices.

    Trading a stable phone for multitasking was not what we wanted when our users upgraded to iOS4.

    -ted

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:50AM (#33227524)

    It isn't just anti-jailbreak, it's patching a pretty serious security flaw.

  • by jo_ham (604554) <joham999@noSPaM.gmail.com> on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:53AM (#33227562)

    What basic functionality?

    Tethering? The phone already does that, without jailbreaking. Installing non-app store apps? I wouldn't call that basic - the phone is just not designed and promoted to work that way (ie, if you want to do other things with it, you're moving away from 'basic' and into 'unsupported, potentially advanced' functions).

    The biggest reason I've seen for jailbreaking my phone (although I haven't done so) is to enable use of the phone as an AP, rather than having to tether to my Powerbook and then share my wifit that way, but the number of times I've needed to share my connection when there's been nothing but 3G access is limited. Either way, that's hardly basic functionality.

    I guess VoIP is verging on basic, but there are apps that work over wifi - the 3G restrictions are carrier based.

    I agree that this exploit has been spun the wrong way - as a positive thing to enable easy jailbreaking. Any security hole is never a positive thing, regardless of the beneficial things you can do with it. I'm glad it has been addressed, although I am hoping it will also be fixed for users of 2G and 3G iPhones who haven;t upgraded to iOS4.

  • by atdt1991 (1069776) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @08:59AM (#33227620)

    But if the media has such a problem with that, maybe they could actually focus on that instead of praising Apple all the time, or conflating the issue with security exploits; or maybe give some coverage to the more popular platforms (Symbian, RIM, Android) that don't need to be jailbroken, instead of the overwhelming coverage of Apple all the time.

    With the exception of right wing political media that get together for weekly talking points, "The Media" doesn't collude together for a common focus. Most reporters know next-to-nothing about the beat they cover unless it is a personal passion, and expecting them to dig deep is incredibly naive, especially in a time like today when a skeleton crew covers virtually everything.

    You have people like Engadget saying "hooray, we can root our iPhones!" and you have people like CNet saying "iPhones are hot shit!", and then you have every tiny tech beat for every newspaper in the country creating stories from that and the massive wave of popularity Apple has garnered. I'd love to see more non-specialty reporting on the history of locking down devices, but you'll have to wait for someone like Wired (who, despite their flaws, is a news hybrid) to try to cross that bridge first.

  • by tooyoung (853621) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @09:03AM (#33227656)
    You do realize that the iPhone does tethering, but AT&T charges $20 to enable it? That is a carrier restriction, not an Apple restriction.
  • Re:Cellphones. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Trufagus (1803250) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @09:17AM (#33227796)

    You forgot a huge reason.

    You bought DRM'ed media from Apple in the past and Apple won't let you play it on their competitors' devices.

  • by polaris20 (893532) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @09:24AM (#33227858)
    What I have a problem with is that I own a 1st gen iPod touch; bought just a couple weeks before the gen 2's came out, so it's just under 2 years old. I cannot install iOS4, so I cannot install this patch. In essence, I have a device that works perfectly fine, but that has a gapping security hole in it that Apple refuses to patch. Why should I run out and buy another $300 device when the one I have now works perfectly fine? I'm really pissed right now. I also have 2 MacBook Pro's, and an iPad. Is Apple going to abandon them after 2 years? Probably. It's really aggravating how Apple is the "most environmentally concerned" electronics/computer company, yet they want me to throw away my perfectly functional device and buy a new one. Sure, I have the option to run Opera (it warns when downloading a PDF), jailbreak it and install the patch (which is what I'll probably end up doing) or just use it as a *gasp* iPod, but the point is I shouldn't have to. I don't want or need the other crap that comes with iOS4. I just want the damn security patch.
  • by Moryath (553296) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @09:24AM (#33227870)

    I would rather have seen a court ruling banning the prevention of jailbreak-type behavior, not just for phones, but for all consumer devices (game consoles, handheld items like e-book readers, etc).

    The custom firmware setups for the PSP, for instance, are leaps and bounds ahead of the "official" firmware function-wise. PDF and image reader functions, improved video playback formats that the PSP firmware doesn't have (and in smaller space too), the ability to independently control the processor speed yourself rather than relying on sony's bitch firmware - at one point one CFW developer actually had a "save state" function that could enable completely shutting down the device (for improved battery life) and saving the system RAM to memory stick for resumption of an in-process game later.

    "DRM" and "Protection" are bullshit.

  • Re:Cellphones. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @09:41AM (#33228036)

    I can think of a few reasons:

    • All of your friends have iPhones and you feel the need to have one as well.

    That's a stupid reason, grow a god damn backbone.
    If your friends kill themselves, wil you too?

    You need to feel like you are part of an "in" crowd.

    Even more ridiculous, only feeble minded people buy for that reason, and those people tend to be idiots.

    The others are more or less valid, but still make it seem like a crappy platform

  • by Xacid (560407) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @09:58AM (#33228274) Journal
    Seriously? Now I'm feeling old. I still thought it meant that.
  • by SplatMan_DK (1035528) * on Thursday August 12, 2010 @10:08AM (#33228434) Homepage Journal

    The main article states that iOS4 is updated. That is incorrect.

    iOS 3x, or more correctly "iPhone OS 3" has also been updated in order to remove the flaw from iPads.

    - Jesper

  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @10:27AM (#33228670) Journal
    Shame you posted this anonymously, it's currently sitting at 0, Insightful. Can we stop this iPhone doublethink when it comes to security holes? This is a remote root hole. Someone can gain root on an iPhone just by making the owner visit a malicious web page. Fixing this hole is not a conspiracy to stop people jailbreaking their phones, it's a fix for a serious hole. Criticise Apple all you like for shipping the hole in the first place or for the time taken to provide the fix, but don't criticise them for addressing a serious vulnerability.
  • by Samalie (1016193) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @10:29AM (#33228694)

    THis is the one thing that at least has me tempted to jailbreak my iPhone.

    Beyond that...there's nothing on the "Unapproved App Store" that I remotely give a shit about. But thats just me.

  • by Low Ranked Craig (1327799) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @10:51AM (#33228946)

    We paid for the phone, we should be able to use it how we see fit.

    Actually, no, you didn't pay for the phone, at least not all of it. You paid $200, and AT&T paid more to Apple as a subsidy.

    I'm sure I'm in the /. minority on this, but I really don't see the big deal about getting an unlocked phone in the US. They're not currently available from Apple, but if they were they'd cost about $600, based on what they sell for in Canada, and you're not entitled to have the iPhone you paid $200 for (subsidized) unlocked, so some questions:

    • Why would I want any "smartphone" without a data plan? What's the point? If that was my goal I'd go back to an iPod and a cheap Nokia
    • The only other carrier in the US is T-Mobile, but apparently they use some different frequencies and not everything works right, so I need AT&T anyway.
    • Since I need a dataplan ($15 or $25 a month from AT&T), why would I pay $400 more for the unlocked phone, which amortized over 24 months is $16.67 a month?

    The sense of entitlement by a lot of people is becoming increasingly disturbing. You want the iPhone 4 unlocked, but you don't (I assume) want to pay the full price for it, and you want the government to step in and tell AT&T / Apple to unlock a subsidized phone. Whatever. You are not entitled to an unlocked iPhone for $200.

  • by Alanonfire (1415379) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @11:36AM (#33229462)
    I agree with you. Especially on the topic of the sense of full entitlement by people becoming disturbing. There's a crazy influx of narcissism and egotism in America. Everyone feels they deserve everything because they're so important.

    Oh well, nice post.
  • by unix1 (1667411) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @11:52AM (#33229648)

    We paid for the phone, we should be able to use it how we see fit.

    Actually, no, you didn't pay for the phone, at least not all of it. You paid $200, and AT&T paid more to Apple as a subsidy.

    It's still a sale and not a lease. They fact that the sale price is subsidized via the sale of another product (2 year service contract) does not make it any less of a sale. If you buy a burrito and a bag of chips, the drink is only 25 cents. If you apply for a Macy's credit card, you get additional 40% off your purchase.

    I'm sure I'm in the /. minority on this, but I really don't see the big deal about getting an unlocked phone in the US. They're not currently available from Apple, but if they were they'd cost about $600, based on what they sell for in Canada, and you're not entitled to have the iPhone you paid $200 for (subsidized) unlocked, so some questions:

    You are confusing subsidized vs unlocked. They are 2 different things. I thought you could already get it unsubsidized, but not unlocked (at least in the U.S.).

    Why would I want any "smartphone" without a data plan? What's the point? If that was my goal I'd go back to an iPod and a cheap Nokia

    I don't know why you would want it, but that's not the point. One could still use it as a Wifi device with VoIP capabilities, etc. You may want to use it on T-Mobile, or get a plan from Canada, or sell it / give it to someone else from another country.

    The only other carrier in the US is T-Mobile, but apparently they use some different frequencies and not everything works right, so I need AT&T anyway.

    No you don't - 3G frequencies are different. Voice and 2G are the same.

    Since I need a dataplan ($15 or $25 a month from AT&T), why would I pay $400 more for the unlocked phone, which amortized over 24 months is $16.67 a month?

    Again, you are confusing subsidized vs unlocked.

    The sense of entitlement by a lot of people is becoming increasingly disturbing. You want the iPhone 4 unlocked, but you don't (I assume) want to pay the full price for it, and you want the government to step in and tell AT&T / Apple to unlock a subsidized phone. Whatever. You are not entitled to an unlocked iPhone for $200.

    Besides the "entitlement" argument, I agree with your point there - I am not convinced the government should step in.

  • by LateArthurDent (1403947) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @12:46PM (#33230246)

    WHAT? The real security issue is that a website could own your device.

    Relax. Take a deep breath. I'll wait. If you're ready now, I'll explain.

    You said: Once they do that, these vulnerabilities will no longer have a beneficial side to them

    I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about? I can think of a ton of vulnerabilities that would have a "beneficial" side to them. Say, for instance, a website were to install a key logger and capture all your passwords...

    That was my fault for writing an ambiguous sentence. I should have said, "Once Apple gives control of the phone to the users, these vulnerabilities will no longer have a beneficial side to iPhone owners."

    The exploits are a bad thing, I agree with you. However, since they currently have a legitimate use with a beneficial value to owners, there's an active incentive to keep phones unpatched and to delay updating when new firmware is released, because you're afraid updating it might disable your jailbreak. That is the greatest security issue there is: it encourages people to keep using phones with known exploits, and they do this on purpose, fully aware that there's an exploit, and fully aware that there's a fix for it.

  • by zrelativity (963547) on Thursday August 12, 2010 @12:56PM (#33230334)
    How does this modded +5?

    I pay AT&T $200 and sign a 2 year contract ($~75/month). It is not $200 only, the cost is amortized over the period of the contract.

    I cannot break that contract without legal recourse from AT&T. Why does AT&T have additional entitlement?

    If I want/need to move to another carrier, I should be able to do so by paying the surrender value for the remainder of the contract, and take my working phone and my number to another carrier of my choice.

    AT&T looses nothing, unless, they expect that the user will fork out additional funds. If there is sense of entitlement it is not with most users, but with AT&T.

"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe

Working...