Apple Can Remotely Disable iPhone Apps 550
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."
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?
Spin this! (Score:2, Insightful)
..Apple fanbois!
*ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* justifies phoning home without having asked the user at some point.
Explicitly.
Up front.
In his/her face.
"But it was there in the EULA" is a stupid argument. The "ohhh shiny!!11" crowd wouldn't have read it, and most reasonable people cannot be expected to.
Disclosure: I have a 4gb iPod Nano which I got for free. I'd rather have something else which wasn't bound to the fancies of Lord Steve, but currently cannot afford it..
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:1, 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*
Re:Refunds (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't get why it was pulled.
Let rich idiots throw their money away on tat.
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially when you consider that it's possible to write a program that tells someone exactly where you are.
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.
Re:excuses, let it rain (Score:3, Insightful)
Lesser companies work out what people want then try to provide that to them at the lowest cost.
True for a lot of products... but put Apple in context here. The PC market isn't exactly flush with good natured business folk doing their upmost to protect consumers. And there's way too much choice in the phone market. The upshot being Apple has a reasonably well trusted, well known brand that looks good. To your average consumer this will be enough to warrant a little extra on a product.
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.
Re:Spin this! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not even a malicious app that is violating someone's privacy without them noticing? I'd rather have Apple disable it and risk the possibility of a false deactivation which I can sort out later than have my iPhone pwned because someone decided that iPhones phoning home was something to get paranoid about.
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.
You mean there is protection against iphone virus? (Score:2, Insightful)
Scandalous!
Apple can kiss my shiny metal ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: CoreLocation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It is a Core Location Blacklist (Score:0, Insightful)
http://daringfireball.net/2008/08/core_location_blacklist [daringfireball.net] :
"An informed source at Apple confirmed to me that the âoeclblâ in the URL stands for âoeCore Location Blacklistâ, and that it does just that. It is not a blacklist for disabling apps completely, but rather specifically for preventing any listed apps from accessing Core Location â" an API which, for obvious privacy reasons, is covered by very strict rules in the iPhone SDK guidelines."
ok so let me understand this. I buy a phone, I write software for my phone, apple can tell me to piss off and that my applications dont meet their guidelines? Ok so they dont know about my application until I share it with others, which btw appears to not be allowed since they want you to use the store that they get 30% off the sales of. Hmm.. something just does not seem that right here.
If I own the phone I should be able to run any app I choose to. If Apple wants to blacklist an app then really it should ask me for permission to do that on *my* phone, and so far no one has suggested that there is a confirmation (anyone with an iphone can test this, edit /etc/hosts, change the IP to your server, have it spit out valid formatted blacklists for an app and see if there is a confirmation).
As long as big brother is there telling me what I can and cannot run I somehow think I will choose something else.
BTW this exact feature was to be in vista, code was written, but eventually due to marketing concerns it was abandoned. It seemed that people did not like the fact that microsoft would have control over what apps could do what on their system. Funny how it seems much more acceptable when apple does the same thing.
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.
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.
Re:This has already been addressed by Steve Jobs! (Score:3, Insightful)
But the URL being talked about in this /. post is not a kill switch as reported in earlier replies.
So, this means that there is still a hidden kill switch in the iPhone.
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.
Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Security Risk? (Score:3, Insightful)
In theory? Sure, why not. In practice, it would be one of the greatest screwup in all history if this could be done. Presumably Apple is signing the list (via private/public keypairs) just like they do iPhone firmware updates; you sign this kind of stuff exactly so that hackers can't do stuff like this.
In other words no, I doubt this list can be exploited in that manner.
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?
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't want my phone making unsolicited phonecalls.
Unless it is Apple installed software doing it?
Don't Tell Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Security Risk? (Score:3, Insightful)
And 100 points to the first person who actually bricks it (i.e. makes it completely and irretrievably unusable), rather than just temporarily disabling it until the next update.
Re:excuses, let it rain (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're using that word without knowing what it means. I suspect most companies would like to have a "fiasco" like the iPhone n their product catalogue.
Apple is my mommy! (Score:3, Insightful)
So, Apple is my Mommy!?
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
>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.
Well you are a fool... Both are corporations and both have profit motives. I trust neither!
Re:excuses, let it rain (Score:4, Insightful)
Gosh, there are some patronising people around today aren't they. My wife gave me an iPod Touch as a gift and as an atheist I can tell you that it is a really rather splendid device. It has flaws (the biggest being a very low-level, volume independent hiss on audio - a pretty big problem for a music player) but other than that, I love it.
I paid for the 2.0 software update and yes, I've downloaded a heap of apps (and paid for one). It works very well, it has a pleasing form factor and yes it is expensive, but not outrageously so.
So a little less of the old high-horse.
Re:Refunds (Score:1, Insightful)
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!
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you're doomed to not deal with any company and live the life of a hermit collecting nuts and berries.
Speaking of nuts...
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.
Re:EULA SIGNED UNDER DIRESS (Score:3, Insightful)
Err, where did you get the idea that this killed iPhones?
It's a list of applications that the iPhone shouldn't run because they're malicious. There's nothing about killing iPhones remotely here.
Of course, the ITWire story itself is written with so much hyperbole and bullshit and speculation it is easy to get caught up in it and lose sight of the simple explanation. Apple run an application store and thus have some responsibility over the contents on that store. If they let some bad software on by accident, they need a way to ensure that end users can't run it.
All the rest is conspiracy theory non-story verbal wankery.
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I second that, meanwhile there is a lot of distrust for apple - in spite of them having one of the most trusted operating systems... bizarre.
Not trusting them keeps them honest.
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.
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
when you run a virus scanner, you let symantec et. al. decide what is dangerous - I love the fuss people are making about this, as if it's a new idea to disable programs on your computer.
You choose to run the virus scanner, you choose which company to run it from or you could just as well choose not to run a virus scanner. And, if you are a person that does not want a virus scanner, should you have to pay for one, like you will have to do with the traffic charges for the iPhone?
The freedom of choice, that is what Apple is taking away from you... I am not saying the service is a bad idea, I am saying its a bad idea to run it without saying you are running it, and without saying why you are running it, and that people have to pay traffic charges to check that list without knowing they are doing so or without maybe even wanting to do so.
Re:Refunds (Score:3, Insightful)
What's wrong with AOL's business model? At the time, it was a great way for a complete neophyte to get online. And it never got in the way of geeks getting on line through "better" alternatives.
There's more than just the "geek" market, you know.
Re:Refunds (Score:3, Insightful)
What's wrong with AOL's business model?
Which part? The walled garden part or the part where they would keep charging your credit card after you left them?
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.
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.
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:1, Insightful)
It's amazing that someone always trots out the 'i don't want my phone making unsolicited calls' rubbish.
Y'know what - plenty of phones have the ability to run any software you'd like on them - such as my HTC Windows Mobile device. Although I run many different apps on my phone, from SSH to Exult and regularly install pointless apps for fun, not once has my phone ever, ever made an unsolicited phone call or used any connection / bandwidth unless I have specifically told it to.
If Apple's iPhone OS design is so lacking that there is an overwhelming possibility that a third-party app could somehow take control of the device (as mactards suggest), then the problem is with Apple and their inability to design a phone with in-built protection against that sort of thing. Why should consumers suffer for Apple's incompetence?
Or, perhaps, this is to save Apple users from themselves, like the idiot who 'accidentally' bought 'I Am Rich.' Maybe all Apple users are this dense, and Apple needs to monitor their legitimately purchased software for their own good? Perhaps Apple should also create hovering CCTV cameras that keep track of all Apple customers in case they momentarily forget that their iPhone or Macbook isn't edible?
In summary, then, Apple can't make a secure phone for shit, or they think their customers are idiots. My money's on both, as both are evidently true.
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!
Re:Refunds (Score:4, Insightful)
I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I want on my iPhone, or any other computing device I own.
I'm sure you are, but it is an iPhone, for crissakes. If you want complete control over devices, why are you even looking at apple's products?
Re:makes sense to me.. (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
thats the dumbest thing i ever heard
Re:Refunds (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Refunds (Score:1, Insightful)
But come on, seriously. You know precisely what comes up with this. Any freeware program that competes with something Apple might want to make pay software for, will instantly be on the blacklist. This isn't a tool for "protecting people from malicious software". If it was, it would be 100% optional anyways. No, this particular setup is a compulsory setup designed for Apple to be able to kill off the competition.
But come on, seriously. I think your tin-foil hat is cutting off the circulation to the rest of your brain.
Paranoia aside, if the iPhone doesn't fit your ideal vision for a pda/phone/whatever, then go buy something better. Oh wait, there isn't currently anything better.
Have a nice day!
Re:Refunds (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, you have the capability to decide for yourself, but what it you don't have the technical ability? Like, what if it turns out that Super Monkey Ball is tracking you throughout your day, and relaying that information back to someone? In that case, even if you knew that, how would you disable Super Monkey Ball from having access to your location?
Since we are all paranoid here...
I write a nice little game and sell it through the iPhone store. One day when you get the high score, it lets you enter your name (as games do) and town and offers to look it up through GPS. When you allow the lookup, an error comes "sorry, this town is not in my database".
Three months later, a gang of robbers starts stealing iPhones. The strange thing is, they know exactly where people with iPhones are. Even stranger, all these people who got robbed have been using my little iPhone game. That is where a core location blacklist would be handy.
Re:Refunds (Score:3, Insightful)
I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I want on my iPhone, or any other computing device I own.
Apple cannot reliably tell the difference between you and someone who would install malware that threatens that particular user, the network, or the reputation of the iPhone's safety (and thus apple), so they don't really have much of a choice. If you think you know better then them and you're smart enough to work around their restrictions, no problem. But they can't endorse it.
It's a different thing with ringtones and such - Verizon forcing you to buy their media is just an irritating money making scheme.
Re:Refunds (Score:3, Insightful)
are you sure? unlike msft apple actually allows other applications, and freeware. If Apple ever puts an app like on the black list just because it is competing with a pay for app then I will agree with you, but apple hasn't ever blacklisted an app that behaves before.
Now it is an easily abuse-able system especially with how it is setup. I always give the benefit of the doubt in such systems. Even to MSFT. MSFT has abused their setups in the past. apple while a control freak really haven't yet. With yet being the key word.
Re:Refunds (Score:3, Insightful)
....a compulsory setup designed for Apple to be able to kill off the competition...
I sincerely hope you are wrong about that. It is quite usual for some to ascribe ulterior motives to others, because they themselves have such thoughts. Why not wait a while and see what Apple actually does with this capability, before ascribing ulterior motives to them? It is generally better to assume innocence rather than guilt. I hope that they really only use this ability to kill programs like a fire alarm switch, kinda like "break glass and pull lever" in case of fire.