Slashdot Log In
Apple Can Remotely Disable iPhone Apps
Posted by
Soulskill
on Mon Aug 11, 2008 04:02 AM
from the they're-making-a-list dept.
from the they're-making-a-list dept.
mikesd81 writes "Engadget reports Apple has readied a blacklisting system which allows the company to remotely disable applications on your device. It seems the new 2.x firmware contains a URL which points to a page containing a list of 'unauthorized' apps — a move which suggests that the device makes occasional contact with Apple's servers to see if anything is amiss on your phone. Jonathan Zdziarski, the man who discovered this, explains, 'This suggests that the iPhone calls home once in a while to find out what applications it should turn off. At the moment, no apps have been blacklisted, but by all appearances, this has been added to disable applications that the user has already downloaded and paid for, if Apple so chooses to shut them down. I discovered this doing a forensic examination of an iPhone 3G. It appears to be tucked away in a configuration file deep inside CoreLocation.'" Update: 08/11 13:07 GMT by T : Reader gadgetopia writes with a small story at IT Wire, citing an interview in the Wall Street Journal, in which this remote kill-switch is "confirmed by Steve Jobs himself."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Why the Kill Switch Makes Sense For Android 384 comments
Technologizer writes "It came out this week that Google's Android phone OS, like the iPhone, has a kill switch that lets Android Market applications be disabled remotely. But it's a mistake to lump Google's implementation and Apple's together — the Google version is a smart, pro-consumer move that avoids all the things that make Apple's version a bad idea."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Refunds (Score:4, Informative)
I Am Rich app, anyone?
Re:Refunds (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't get why it was pulled.
Let rich idiots throw their money away on tat.
Parent
Re:Refunds (Score:5, Funny)
Probably for violating an Apple business method patent.
Parent
business method patent? (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm, explains a lot - though I can see a lot of infringement cases come up. Including one against patent infringement lawyers. I wonder who'll represent Apple there?
Parent
Re:Refunds (Score:5, Insightful)
I always enjoy old adages being proved right. In this case "A fool and his money are soon parted."
I just wish I'd been the one to think of marketing an app to the terminally stupid.
Parent
Re:Refunds (Score:5, Interesting)
"ethical standpoint"?
How is there anything wrong with offering a useless piece of overpriced tat?
You don't have to be amoral to do this.
Hell I wish I'd come up with something this easy and effective.
It wasn't misrepresented, it wasn't claimed to do anything it didn't.
Where is the problem?
Parent
Re:Refunds (Score:5, Insightful)
[quote]you are taking advantage of other's stupidity, and benefitting at their expense (very different from benefitting while benefitting others).[/quote]
How is this wrong as long as you don't mislead them.
If I try to sell a shiny piece of rock for a stupidly high price and even put up a big sign saying "THIS DOES NOTHING USEFUL, ALL IT DOES IS SHOW YOU CAN AFFORD IT!"
How am I doing anything at all wrong?
I haven't lied, I haven't cheated, I haven't climed my shiny rock will keep tigers away.
I'm basicly saying "if you give me $1000 I will give you something to show you're so wealthy that you could give me $1000 for the hell of it."
If someone chooses of their own free will to hand me money then who are you to say they shouldn't be allowed to spend their money how they wish.
"you encourage a culture of overconsumption, which, in the long term, is not sustainable for the projected populations we are looking at, and is not necessary."
Ya cause making a copy of a piece of useless software puts such a strain on our natural environment.
If you follow that argument then every industry based on selling status symbols is evil and immoral.
Parent
Re:Refunds (Score:5, Insightful)
If I try to sell a shiny piece of rock for a stupidly high price and even put up a big sign saying "THIS DOES NOTHING USEFUL, ALL IT DOES IS SHOW YOU CAN AFFORD IT!"
...a nice, subtle reference to the diamond industry.
Nice.
Parent
Re:Refunds (Score:5, Informative)
No. This is a Core Location Black List [daringfireball.net]. It stops listed apps from retrieving your current location. But it doesn't stop that app from working otherwise.
Parent
Re:Refunds (Score:5, Informative)
Steve Jobs apparently confirms that it is a malicious app kill switch.
No. He confirmed that there is a "kill switch", he said nothing about how it's implemented.
The Core Location black list is only about what apps get to access your phone's location data.
-jcr
Parent
Re:Refunds (Score:5, Insightful)
malicious app kill switch
"For your security."
"For your own good."
"For the children."
I've got a message for Apple, quite simple - I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I want on my iPhone, or any other computing device I own.
If you can't understand that, and continue down this road, then the chances of my buying an iPhone (of any generation) are most definitely going to diminish to nothingness.
I already kicked Verizon to the curb for locking down the phone and trying to force me into their own ridiculous $/month ringtone service when I have perfectly good midi, wav, and mp3 files to make ringtones of myself. Don't think I won't go to a provider that has the sense to let me work with things MY way.
Parent
Re:Refunds (Score:5, Insightful)
All fine and good, but I'd counter-argue that if YOU can't comprehend why it's potentially very BENEFICIAL for a carrier to be able to globally "kill off" some new app that turns out to be a trojan horse, leaking out your private information everywhere ... then I don't know what to tell you, really?
It's one thing to claim you're "perfectly capable of deciding for yourself what you want on your phone" ... but another for that statement to be truly 100% accurate.
Working in I.T. as long as I have, I, too, like to feel "in control" of the devices I use. Most of the time, I know what I'm *trying* to install and leave out on the computers I use. But the problem comes in because none of us have time (or even the ability) to audit the source code for each program we install. We have to go on faith that apps do what they say, most of the time. We can pay other people to act as "watchdogs" for us, which is essentially what paid subscriptions for anti-virus/anti-spyware software really are. But ultimately, we still have to trust SOMEONE, or else we'd never install ANY new software on a computer, a phone, or other electronic device, out of fear it might destroy our data or send it where it's not supposed to go!
Parent
Re:Refunds (Score:5, Informative)
Security is layered.
Applications have permission to run by virtue of the fact that they are signed by Apple. That certificate can be revoked. (The so called kill switch).
This black list deals with apps that make inappropriate use of Core Location, but are otherwise OK. For example an app might constantly use explicit Core Location requests to find the current location. That would drain the battery in no time. (versus requesting to be notified when location has changed by more than a threshhold). The App is non-malicious, just sloppily programmed. Apple could blacklist it's core location functionality, whilst leaving the rest of the functionality working. Until such time as the developer produces a fixed version.
Parent
makes sense to me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's better than having a lot of malicious programs out there, using data or sending personal information, with no way of recalling them.
Shouldn't be used unless it's deemed "dangerous".
"I am rich" for instance is a legitimate app, although without much purpose. But let's be honest, a lot of apps in the app store has little or no purpose. A 12$ flash light, anyone?
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:4, Funny)
A 12$ flash light, anyone?
Don't you mean a 512 dollar flash light?
Parent
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't be used unless it's deemed "dangerous".
Who decides what's dangerous? Are pirated apps going to be deemed dangerous? If you bypass certain security measures, is that dangerous? I don't like control being taken away from me (where "me" in this case is any end-user).
Even if the intent is to only blacklist malware, does apple have a research lab to determine whats malicious and what isnt? Will they tell us how they decide on malware? What if you release an app that is infected with malware, the app is still legit whereas the malware part of the code is not. What happen if that app gets blacklisted, can it be revoked? If the iPhone contacts a webpage every now and then, will apple pay the bill for the connection?
I don't like this, at the moment I don't like it because they did it without saying they are doing it. Going forward, they should say what they intend to block and give the enduser and option of either using the "service" or not... especially since the end-user is the one paying the bill for the datatransfer, the amount of money is imho completely irrelevant.
Parent
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on what Apple has told developers since the start of the program, revocation appears to be certificate based; Apple is revoking the developer's certificate for that program, which breaks the authentication chain and prevents the application from running. As for what they can block, it does not look like this would be effective against a jailbroken kernel, since much of the authentication chain is patched out anyhow; in other words they wouldn't be able to revoke: the jailbreak, applications for it, and perhaps even regular applications once the jailbroken kernel is installed.
As for what they'll revoke, that's the bigger question. Apple has not shown to be particularly hostile towards the jailbreak community in the past; even if they could revoke it, I don't believe they will. The real test on this policy would be the NetShare application, it's an application Apple has ceased to allow post-release and if the revocation system were to be abused it would be the prime target. So far Apple has not revoked it, even though they've had ample time to do so.
That leaves us with malware. I don't find this to be something hard to define, but perhaps other Slashdot readers do. If the application is legit but has a problem (backdoor for exploiting the Mobile account, for example) I'd assume Apple will revoke the certificate for the bad application and let the author issue an updated version as long as they didn't intentionally create a problem (which is grounds for being expelled from the AppStore program). If it's outright malware that somehow passed Apple's QC, then they'll still revoke it, will not issue further certificates to the guilty party, and since they had to sign up for the program, track the guilty party down and sue them for computer crimes in some form.
I'm not too worried about this (I consider blocking malware from running a good thing) but I can see why other people here would be worried. In either case it's a well thought-out system that seems to cover every contingency, so there shouldn't be any "friendly fire" of applications being unintentionally revoked.
Parent
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:5, Informative)
"Oh, but's Apple, and this is good! Want to know why the PC prospered? Apple around the time of when it could have gone its way introduced an SDK development process where every developer who wanted to deliver something had to have a developer token. Without the blessing of Apple no go on Apple hardware! It annoyed many developers and the rest is history...
Don't believe? Do some historical checks..."
Really, I was an Apple developer back in the day, moving from the Apple II all the way to the original Mac (the all in one) and then getting out of the business a few years later.
I don't remember EVER contacting Apple for the SDK. I simply bought Lightspeed /Think C and Pascal and developed. Want more in-depth info? Get the Inside Macintosh books. I had like 2 dozen...each taking up a few hundred pages, and each focusing on an API and/or group of related items. Things like Audio had entire volumes written about it (this was my focus).
In this time, I *NEVER* once asked Apple for a 'token'...it wasn't needed. The most you'd ever need would be to have an official App ID (or whatever it was called) that ensured that documents created with specific doc types would know what application would open it -- and to keep other developers from trying to usurp yours. It could easily be done on the local computer.
Honestly, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. This falls into the realm of not just ignorance, but making shit up.
Parent
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I choose to run the virus scanner, and I can choose to disable it or run another one in its place if it causes problems.
I love the fuss people are making about this, as if it's a new idea to disable programs on your computer.
I love the tenuous analogies that people try to come up with to justify it, just because it's Apple, when it would never be accepted if it was any other company.
Parent
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Just... wow
Let's change the players a bit:
"Engadget reports Microsoft has readied a blacklisting system which allows the company to remotely disable applications on your Vista PC."
Do we still feel warm and protected?
Parent
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:5, Funny)
which allows the company to remotely disable applications
You mean like what complete strangers currently do now on a windows pc?
Parent
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I trust Amazon with my credit card number and address. I wouldn't trust Scammy Viagra Co with either.
Of course it's within the realms of possibility that Amazon may misuse it, but the benefit I get in a wide access to cheap books outweighs my risk.
On the other hand I'd expect Scammy Viagra Co to misuse it.
It's perfectly reasonable to accord different companies with different levels of trust. And giving out your credit card number is a far more significant trust level than allowing a company to prevent selected apps from accessing your current location.
I do trust Apple to use it responsibly. I wouldn't trust Microsoft to. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. All companies are not the same. Microsoft's evil misdeeds negatively affect their trustworthiness, but they don't affect all other companies too.
Parent
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:5, Informative)
This is actually a few days old; it did the rounds on the Apple rumour sites and was debunked: it's a blacklist that can prevent applications using Core Location to determine a users' position (so if an app is abusing it & logging everywhere a user goes, they can be prevented from doing that while still allowing the app to function).
The hint was in the filename (and the library that references it): clbl - Core Location BlackList
Parent
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And this certainly isn't there to make sure they can blacklist any iphone breakout software that gets into the wild. God no! Apple cares about their customers! *Cough Cough Cough*
Well, considering there already is breakout software in the wild and it has nothing to do with the apple store... No, this looks like another line of defence in case malware somehow makes it past their reviewing process.
And, you know what? I'm in favour of it. I don't want my phone making unsolicited phonecalls.
Parent
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:5, Funny)
Not trusting them keeps them honest.
Wouldn't that make Microsoft the most honest company ever?
Parent
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not without it asking you first.
Although it probably wouldn't hard to write an app with a legitimate reason to use the GPS, and throw in a few lines that will also tell the author where you are as well.
Parent
Security Risk? (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the unpatched Kaminsky DNS stuff on desktop OS X, or even just spoofed ips, doesn't this mean that a malicious attacker might be able to spoof the apple "ban list" and disable core functionality? How long until this can be exploited with a list of the core os x daemons thus "bricking" the phone until ?
Re:Security Risk? (Score:5, Funny)
These points you speak of... are they redeemable for cash?
Parent
It is a Core Location Blacklist (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It is a Core Location Blacklist (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:It is a Core Location Blacklist (Score:5, Funny)
That'll be Slashdot's lack of unicode support -_-
Jeeze! If we can put a man on the moon, you'd think that... Oh, nevermind...we can't even do that anymore either.
Parent
Re:It is a Core Location Blacklist (Score:5, Funny)
No, /. sucks. Try to point out the price of something in Euros. It won't work.
"10 Euro".
Hmm, seems to work here...
Parent
Re:It is a Core Location Blacklist (Score:5, Informative)
€ is your friend ;)
€
Parent
re: CoreLocation (Score:5, Informative)
Re: CoreLocation (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, come on don't you spoil our neat little flamefest based on mere guesswork and Anti-Apple bias with your boring and irrelevant facts, please.
I mean this if Slashdot, if you want news, please go to CNN.com. Ah, damned, they don't want their stories being diluted by facts either...
Parent
Net Share (Score:4, Interesting)
So how long before Net Share gets disabled?
Unfortunately I missed this app when it was on the App Store and I've been looking for a way to install it, but I suspect now that even if I succeed, that it will get disabled by Apple in the coming weeks/months.
iPhone newbie question:
Is there a way to install apps which have been removed from the App Store by somehow getting the binary?
Not an Apple-specific problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of problem is now years past the place where it can be solved by "voting with your dollars," or hoping that exposing the problem will create bad PR and shame the company into correcting it.
I don't know what parts of our constitution are still operative today, but if we can't get the public interested in privacy rights, get Congress interested in passing appropriate legislation, making "phoning home" against the law--and getting those laws enforced--then Apple and Microsoft and Sony and everyone else will continue to do whatever is technologically feasible, convenient, and supportive of their corporate goals.
It's naive to think that there are Good Companies and Evil Companies and that the answer is to put your faith in the Good Companies.
Of course, I do hope that exposing the problem creates bad PR and shames Apple into fixing it.
This has already been addressed by Steve Jobs! (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/11/jobs-60-million-iphone-apps-downloaded-confirms-kill-switch/ [engadget.com]
Steve Jobs has confirmed the kill-switch, and defends it as a "responsible" way to make sure they can deal with it if a malicious app finds its way into the App Store.
Get with the times, editors!
Apple can kiss my shiny metal ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple can kiss my shiny metal ass (Score:5, Informative)
"There's just *no way* a phone should contact another server without the user knowing it..."
Actually, when you stop to think about it, every cell phone in existence does just that, as all of 'em continually poll local cell towers to tell the servers that they're in that particular neighborhood. You might not have known it's doing that, but it does.
Then there's the fact that the iPhone checks iTunes servers for application updates, does push/pull on various and sundry mail servers, handles SMS messaging, will shortly begin checking for push notifications, checks who knows what stock and weather servers....
Parent
wow, expensive *and* restrictive? (Score:5, Funny)
Where can I sign up for the really expensive phone with no buttons, locked into a single provider, that I can't modify or enjoy in any way (except the approved ways I suppose).
I'd really like one of those.
Re:excuses, let it rain (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we stop pretending that philosophical issues are the most important things when someone buys a product? Yeah, Apple products are more closed and restrictive, but they work for me. And until I get burnt by them bad enough to consider switching, I have no problem with them. I mean, they do behave pretty well for a Corporation. No need to spread FUD at the first sight of something that may not be ideal.
Parent
Doesn't anyone else find it funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
... that as soon as someone dares to post something other than the usual expressions of paranoia and criticism, other less free-minded individuals accuse him of sheep mentality, or drinking the kool aid? Someone else has to see the irony in that!
Parent
Re:excuses, let it rain (Score:4, Funny)
I'll bet you think Linux is a good desktop solution for the average user.
Parent
Re:excuses, let it rain (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple really does have an incredible buisness model. Lesser companies work out what people want then try to provide that to them at the lowest cost. Apple tells it's fans what they should want and then sells it to them for a remarkably high price. I never would have thought such a system would work.
That business model is called religion.
Parent
Re:Spin this! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Spin this! (Score:5, Informative)
Well if that seems perfectly reasonable to you, iPhone isn't really for you since currently no applications are blocked from using your GPS...
is that so mr anonymous coward? that's odd, since my iPhone pops up a message ""app_name" would like to use your current location" the first time each app tries to access the GPS since the last reboot. seems to me you're talking right out your ass
Parent
Re:It's not called a 'phone home' (Score:5, Funny)
It's not youPhone, it's iPhone. And so it phones.
Parent
Re:It's not called a 'phone home' (Score:5, Insightful)
It's probably in the terms and conditions of ownership, and thus every owner has given permission already.
It's not like Apple is collecting user information here. It's a HTTP GET as far as I can tell, with no information being supplied to Apple, just a list of applications that are bad and that the user shouldn't run for their own protection.
Going beyond this into the realm of assuming that apple are collecting user data, disabling applications they just don't like, etc, is stupidity on the level of people who believe in conspiracy theories.
Parent
Re:Once Again (Score:5, Interesting)
You know it's really sad when a poster doesn't even RTFA or read the RTFT(thread). Engadget, and now Slashdot.. Are people on the internet really that illiterate now and just follow the leader? After MANY posts (many by me and many by others) on Engadget, people STILL insist "APPLE IS GETTING SUED!" or "Ha! What are you fanboys going to say to this?" and the best one "Haha Same as the Microsoft WGA". Anyways I've already made too many posts and feel redundant, but rumors and speculation to get THIS far is simply sickening.
Parent