Re: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.com >,
> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
> >
> > It most certainly isn't.
>
> Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
> permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
> Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,

The iPhone uses a version of OS X, so we're told, which certainly isn't
a single-user OS. Do you believe Apple's developers turned it into a
single-user OS? I very much doubt it, that would be throwing away major
development potential further down the line, like a multi user
permissions based iPhone, possibly using fingerprint access.

> therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
> prevent processes from doing whatever they like.

Why not? Separate root processes from user processes with only Apple
updates having root access.

With third party apps now available, how long do you suppose it'll be
before some enterprising hacker creates an exploit to record calls and
e-mail them to him? Most would be boring as hell, but dropping that
exploit on Jobs' iPhone might be very interesting, or even Sweaty's,
assuming he'd get one... Easier to implement if you know the user is
running as root.

> The "don't run anything as root" mantra has been repeated so many times
> that people have some sort of irrational fear of it.

The mantra is there for a very good reason, and if people have an
irrational fear of running as root that's because they don't understand
why.

> It's true that it's
> less secure than the alternatives offered by multi-user operating
> systems... but running OS 9 or Windows 98, one was essentially always
> running as root, and the same is true of most mobile operating systems
> today.

And look at the shambles that was Windows 98 security. MacOS had its
fair share of exploits too.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

In article <1i672tb.1txsex61guies3N%notinuse2@btinternet.com> ,
notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.com >,
> > notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > > > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
> > >
> > > It most certainly isn't.
> >
> > Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
> > permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
> > Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,
>
> The iPhone uses a version of OS X, so we're told, which certainly isn't
> a single-user OS. Do you believe Apple's developers turned it into a
> single-user OS? I very much doubt it, that would be throwing away major
> development potential further down the line, like a multi user
> permissions based iPhone, possibly using fingerprint access.

I don't believe they cut the multiuser features out of OS X on the
iPhone. They're just not currently using them for anything, by all
accounts.

> > therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
> > prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
>
> Why not? Separate root processes from user processes with only Apple
> updates having root access.
>
> With third party apps now available, how long do you suppose it'll be
> before some enterprising hacker creates an exploit to record calls and
> e-mail them to him? Most would be boring as hell, but dropping that
> exploit on Jobs' iPhone might be very interesting, or even Sweaty's,
> assuming he'd get one... Easier to implement if you know the user is
> running as root.

I think this is the way they'll probably go when they officially open
the phone to third-party apps. They're not doing it now, though.

And all of this is beside the point. The discussion was whether running
as root on a multiuser OS was any more dangerous than the normal state
of affairs on a single-user OS. It's not, therefore the fact that the
iPhone currently runs everything as root doesn't represent any kind of
security problem for the iPhone *relative to most other mobile devices*,
contrary to what the iPhone's detractors have tried to claim.

[snip]

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In article <Xns99CDBD0C047E2noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
> news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.c om:
>
> > I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user
> > system but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
> >
> > -
>
> Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
> accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it
> supports, with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because
> you are never root?

Everything on an iPhone currently runs as root. The reason you can't do
whatever you like with this access is simply because there's no
interface (graphical or otherwise) that lets you do it.

[snip]

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

> Yes, it's going to be a massive wave of innovation never before seen by
> the cell industry. Never has such a large computer firm entered the cell
> space, and since the cell industry is very uncompetitive, Apple will
> wipe out much of what exists today... so it's going to fun to watch them
> fall.

Do you just sit and home and jerk yourself off to this nonsense? Yeesh, get
a clue.

In article <v0cfh35jevpt3ihk9n0icga82610rif1fm@4ax.com>, pltrgyst
<pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:17:00 -0700, "Ness Net"
> <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
> >First, the iPhone root password was broken. OK, it happens. But now it seems
> >that all applications run on the iPhone as root. Can you say biggest
> >security blunder of the 21st century to date?
>
> Wasn't W re-elected in 2004?
>
> -- Larry


From outside the US...LOL and bravissimo!

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <Xns99CDBD0C047E2noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
> > notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
> > news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.c om:
> >
> > > I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user
> > > system but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
> > >
> > > -
> >
> > Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
> > accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it
> > supports, with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because
> > you are never root?
>
> Everything on an iPhone currently runs as root. The reason you can't do
> whatever you like with this access is simply because there's no
> interface (graphical or otherwise) that lets you do it.

So the first app to write for it is Terminal...

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

On Oct 17, 7:48 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> Everyone wants an iPhone
> since it's more feature packed and far easier to use than any other cell
> phone... we all know that. So once Apple moves the iPhone down the price
> scale, it will remove "most" handset makers out of the market.

Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The iPhone has a great touch-
screen interface and a great browser, and that's why I got one. But as
an actual phone it kinda sucks. The form factor is unwieldy and too
slippery, the earpiece is too quiet, the ring is too quiet, the
vibration setting can be barely felt, and the crippled SMS
functionality was clearly designed by someone who knows nothing about
how people actually use text messaging. It's a cool gadget, but it's
NOT a good phone.

I still got one despite all this because I wanted the big screen with
Google Maps and a full(er) browser, but it was a compromise for me.
The iPhone could be so much more than what it is.

That said, I'm excited about Apple allowing 3rd party software. Maybe
someone will fix the piss-awful SMS application that doesn't allow
sending text messages to more than one person at a time, or even
forwarding text messages, or even sending/receiving MMS.

Hmm... Now I wonder if Apple crippled the iPhone on purpose so they
could make money from 3rd-party apps. I bet that Apple will set things
up so they'll get a cut from every 3rd-party app sold.

-Gniewko

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, lubecki@hotmail.com wrote:
> Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The iPhone has a great touch-
> screen interface and a great browser, and that's why I got one. But as
> an actual phone it kinda sucks.

Well, duh! What did you expect? The iPhone is a high-end iPod that is
also a phone and Internet access device. As such, it is first and
foremost an iPod. Telephony and Internet are afterthoughts.

> I still got one despite all this because I wanted the big screen with
> Google Maps and a full(er) browser, but it was a compromise for me.

It is not only not a particular good phone, it also is not a particularly
good Internet access device. The screen resolution is too tiny.

The Nokia N800 or a UMPC (such as the Sony UX series) make much better
Internet access devices. Nobody who has either a Nokia N800 or UMPC is
particularly impressed with the iPhone's Internet capability. What's
more, both are open platforms: Linux on the Nokia N800 (and you can
develop your own applications for it) and Windows on a UMPC.

> The iPhone could be so much more than what it is.

Of course, but it won't; Steve Jobs wants to make it as cheaply as
possible and sell for as much as possible.

Apple is absolutely NOT interested in having open development for the
iPhone. They made that abundantly clear.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Peter Hayes wrote:
>>
>> Everything on an iPhone currently runs as root. The reason you can't
>> do whatever you like with this access is simply because there's no
>> interface (graphical or otherwise) that lets you do it.
>
> So the first app to write for it is Terminal...

Uh, it's been out since July.

The Chicken Littles are still confused why the world hasn't come to an end
and AT&T's "West Coast network" has not been taken down.


--
Mike

Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in
news:alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710190827390.3116@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM:

> The Nokia N800 or a UMPC (such as the Sony UX series) make much better
> Internet access devices. Nobody who has either a Nokia N800 or UMPC is
> particularly impressed with the iPhone's Internet capability. What's
> more, both are open platforms: Linux on the Nokia N800 (and you can
> develop your own applications for it) and Windows on a UMPC.
>
>

Nokia has posted new webpages for the new N810, with slideout keyboard
and Maemo Linux OS2008, the next generation operating system for the N800
and N810 boxes:

N810
http://europe.nokia.com/A4568578

Maemo OS2008
http://europe.nokia.com/A4579471

Looking at N810, I think I made the right choice with the $222 N800. The
N810 keyboard makes it much thicker, gotta be heavier and they took the
great speakers off the FRONT, where speakers belong.

Can't wait to see the new toys in OS2008 on the N800....(c;

Larry
--
Orb serves my videos/audios/pictures/TV card cable TV/webcam of the
living room/files to the N800 via Realmedia over EVDO or wifi fantastic!
http://corp.orb.com/
Really cool to have ALL the 4.8TB in the little Linux box...(c;
Orb should run as a Quicktime server to the iPhone, too!
Alas, Orb runs under Win XP/Vista.....