Apple Can Remotely Disable iPhone Apps

[Sporkman]

http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/08/11/0317209.shtml


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.

[zmjjmz]

Reason #395322145 not to buy an iPhone.

[andamaru]

When you buy an iPhone what exactly are you purchasing? :confused:

[Dr. C]

Reason #395322145 not to buy an iPhone.

Or any other Apple product for that matter.

[DeadSuperHero]

Wow.

Human rights, much?

/end sarcasm

[days_of_ruin]

But iSheep don't care because to them whatever Steve Jobs does by
their definition is good.

[zmjjmz]

Someone wanna sue Apple and force them to replace the word "install" applications with "borrow" applications?

[hanzomon4]

But iSheep don't care because to them whatever Steve Jobs does by
their definition is good.

I do care, I'm not a sheep, but apple products are great. The iPhone is the first phone that I want to(and will) go out and buy. I consider myself a respectable techno-geek that can tell a good gadget from slick marketing.

This is disturbing but it only gives me more of a reason to unlock the phone, it's still a great comput...er phone

[damis648]

This extremely disappoints me. Good thing my iPhone has been jailbroken & unlocked from the day I bought it! ;-) (Save a few restores for updating and jailbreaking the new firmwares) ;-)

[pcjoe]

I believe this is mainly for disabling malicious applications. Notice while applications like NetShare have been removed from the store, it has NOT been entered into this application blacklist. The application even violates AT&T's ToS where they explicitly state that tethering isn't allowed. I think this is one of the few times Apple actually has a good reason to do this; like Jobs says "Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull"

Imagine if someone created an free application that hit 2mil+ downloads, but then after a month of using the application, it automatically sent all of your sensitive data off to some random server. If Apple didn't have such a feature, not only would their reputation be tarnished, but it would just flat out suck for the end users like you and myself. If you're not up to date with the latest tech blogs, you would have no idea this application is invading your privacy.

[kernelhaxor]

wht else wud I expect from Apple ? .. to me, their costs and practices hav always been questionable ..

[dspari1]

Perhaps they are going to use this for testing beta products?

For example, lets say they provided a beta version of a video streaming app (like Windows Video Encoder 9) for free for a limited time.

After the beta expires, this could be the method that they disable the beta so people can either upgrade to the latest beta OR shut down the beta, and release the commercial product.

I'm not saying that this is what it is, but it *could* be.

[FranMichaels]

That's proprietary software for you. :-({|=
They have implemented an additional point of failure, regardless of possible "good intentions", you have to have full trust in Apple...
That, and hope someone else does not figure out how to trigger the kill switch.

As a side note, I read about this from this article:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9112303&intsrc=hm_list

Quotation because the last part made me :lolflag:



...why Apple shouldn't be expected to sniff out malicious intent before it grants approval to an application and adds it to the App Store.

"On the other hand, how did the 'I Am Rich' app get through?" Storms asked, referring to an application that appeared briefly in the App Store last week before Apple yanked the $999 program. I Am Rich, which was reportedly purchased by a handful of users, had no function other than to display a rubylike icon on the home screen of the iPhone.

[Methuselah]

This is what DRM does folks.
You think you own it?
Think again.

[pcjoe]

Heh... I don't really know what to say. I've been reading these forums on a regular basis for the past year or so, and sometimes you guys just really disappoint me.

This mechanism, afaik, has nothing to do with DRM. It's a simple blacklist file that just blocks applications. Do you guys SERIOUSLY think they're going to be like, oh, we don't like X application, lets remotely disable it and just screw over the few thousand people that purchased it! Um... yeah.... They probably removed the "I Am Rich" application because they had to refund dozens of people for $1,000 that accidentally purchased it.

Like I said earlier, if Apple had intentions of using it for disabling regular applications, it would have been used on NetShare which clearly violates AT&T's ToS. Notice that people who already purchased that application can still use it, without a problem! I'm not saying the iPhone is the best device in the world, or that it doesn't have it's flaws, but damn... Some of these comments really take the cake for blind ignorance. You completely refuse to see any benefit for having some of these features.

Ya, lets disable the DRM for the Apps and let people just rampantly pirate by sharing and copy and pasting apps! That will stick it to the big man! Oh wait.... that's right, the actual developers get the majority of the cut, and if anything, that would just hurt them... *smack*

If you guys are going to slam Apple, at least slam them on stuff they did poorly (Mobile Me, iPhone stability, etc). Don't start making up reasons to make them bad -_- If you guys actually do have a valid point about any of this, at least post an example that would show a probable situation of them abusing this power.

[zmjjmz]

It's just that this list is entirely unnecessary because Apple reviews (or at least it should) the source code for each app.

So if you want me to bash Apple for something they did poorly, then obviously the App store is it, because they can't trust themselves to review the source and test applications properly.

[Eddie Wilson]

Ya, lets disable the DRM for the Apps and let people just rampantly pirate by sharing and copy and pasting apps! That will stick it to the big man! Oh wait.... that's right, the actual developers get the majority of the cut, and if anything, that would just hurt them... *smack*

People has a right to slam Apple as much as Microsoft if they want to. Don't make fun of people with useless statements unless you have some way to back them up. I am really amazed. Your first two post, after reading for a year was to slam people who said something bad about Apple. Now what does that say about you... *smack*

[billgoldberg]

http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/08/11/0317209.shtml

That's what you get if you buy Apple products.

No surprise here.

[billgoldberg]

Heh... I don't really know what to say. I've been reading these forums on a regular basis for the past year or so, and sometimes you guys just really disappoint me.

This mechanism, afaik, has nothing to do with DRM. It's a simple blacklist file that just blocks applications. Do you guys SERIOUSLY think they're going to be like, oh, we don't like X application, lets remotely disable it and just screw over the few thousand people that purchased it!

Does the article say:

Apple remotely disables iphone apps?

No, it says

Apple can remotely disable iphone apps.

--

I don't think they will do it anytime soon, but still, they can do it if they want to.

That's a reason to avoid Apple Inc.

--

Another step closer to Trusted Computing?

[maagimies]

I think I'll quote Maddox on this.


Here's a non-biased, side-by-side comparison of some key features of each phone:

Resolution:

iPhone: 320x480
Nokia E70: 352x416
Storage:

iPhone: 4 or 8 gigs (fixed).
Nokia E70: Unlimited. The E70 can use hot-swappable 2 GB mini SD cards, so you can have as much storage as you want.
Can customize ringtones with your own mp3s:

iPhone: ✗
Nokia E70: ✓
Can record video:

iPhone: ✗
Nokia E70: ✓
Screen turns into a smudgy piece of **** after a few minutes of use:

iPhone: ✓
Nokia E70: ✗
Can send MMS messages::

iPhone: ✗
Nokia E70: ✓
You have to send your phone to Apple when the battery dies and risk getting your phone lost, stolen, or damaged in transit

iPhone: ✓
Nokia E70: ✗
Plays MP3s:

iPhone: ✓
Nokia E70: ✓
Holds your phone hostage to Apple for new software updates because Apple won't allow everyone to develop applications for it:

iPhone: ✓
Nokia E70: ✗
Voice dialing:

iPhone: ✗
Nokia E70: ✓
Can record voice:

iPhone: ✗
Nokia E70: ✓
Instant messaging:

iPhone: ✗
Nokia E70: ✓
Can't do fundamental tasks like copy & paste text:

iPhone: Yes
Nokia E70: No. Double negative, bitches!

[geoken]

Imagine if someone created an free application that hit 2mil+ downloads, but then after a month of using the application, it automatically sent all of your sensitive data off to some random server. If Apple didn't have such a feature, not only would their reputation be tarnished, but it would just flat out suck for the end users like you and myself. If you're not up to date with the latest tech blogs, you would have no idea this application is invading your privacy.

You mean kind of like what happens with Window's on a daily basis? Are you saying you would support Microsoft if they had an application that contacted their server, was impossible to turn off and was capable of disabling apps on your computer?

[grossaffe]

You mean kind of like what happens with Window's on a daily basis? Are you saying you would support Microsoft if they had an application that contacted their server, was impossible to turn off and was capable of disabling apps on your computer?

awesome, where do I sign up?!

[Polygon]

apple is not stupid enough to abuse this power, its simply there as a precaution.

[t0p]

I believe this is mainly for disabling malicious applications. Notice while applications like NetShare have been removed from the store, it has NOT been entered into this application blacklist. The application even violates AT&T's ToS where they explicitly state that tethering isn't allowed. I think this is one of the few times Apple actually has a good reason to do this; like Jobs says "Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull"

Imagine if someone created an free application that hit 2mil+ downloads, but then after a month of using the application, it automatically sent all of your sensitive data off to some random server. If Apple didn't have such a feature, not only would their reputation be tarnished, but it would just flat out suck for the end users like you and myself. If you're not up to date with the latest tech blogs, you would have no idea this application is invading your privacy.

Holy cow! So iPhone users need their hand held to such an extent that they need Apple to tell them what's malware and what isn't? Thank Eris I'm not one of the dweebs!!

[t0p]

Ya, lets disable the DRM for the Apps and let people just rampantly pirate by sharing and copy and pasting apps! That will stick it to the big man! Oh wait.... that's right, the actual developers get the majority of the cut, and if anything, that would just hurt them... *smack*
.

So you're a DRM fan huh? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. An Apple fanboy who wants to *own* the software he "buys" would be a contradiction in terms.

[pcjoe]

It's just that this list is entirely unnecessary because Apple reviews (or at least it should) the source code for each app.

So if you want me to bash Apple for something they did poorly, then obviously the App store is it, because they can't trust themselves to review the source and test applications properly.
For some reason I doubt they go through every application's source code and make meaningful conclusions from it. I'm assuming you've never done a code review. If you have, you should know it's not a simple process. It would take at least a few days per application, and even more for complex ones. At best they probably do a quick scan to make sure they're not using some forbidden API. It's not about trusting themselves or their reviews; it's just not possible to account for everything. If this is indeed such a 'wrong' approach, what should they have done? If there's an application on your phone that starts sending your contact information to a 3rd party, should they just post on their site: "Oh, we're so sorry, but your contact list has been compromised. Please uninstall the application at your soonest convenience." I feel kind of bad for those people who don't check the site on a regular basis.

Don't get me wrong; if Apple starts turning off random applications for NO reason whats so ever (or poor reasons), I'll hop in your boat. I think it's just rather pretentious to be saying it's a horrible idea before anything even happens.


People has a right to slam Apple as much as Microsoft if they want to. Don't make fun of people with useless statements unless you have some way to back them up. I am really amazed. Your first two post, after reading for a year was to slam people who said something bad about Apple. Now what does that say about you... *smack*
Um... excuse me? Read over my posts again; I don't remember making fun of -anyone-. Even more, I don't remember slamming anyone either. IIRC, saying you're disappointed in someone doesn't mean you're making fun of them. I had a rather sarcastic part about the DRM, but there was no such intention of offending anyone. It was just some light humor saying if they disabled DRM for the apps, the people who would get effected are the developers; not Apple.

Also, what does that say about me? I feel strongly enough about this topic to post and go against popular opinion here? I don't normally participate in forums, but stuff like this just irks me the wrong way. Like when people are like C# is a horrible language! Everyone should develop in C++!! Yeahhh... How about you actually try not being ignorant and try out the language, and then come back AFTER you have some valid claims to make :-/

Even when people throw out random insults about Linux, saying it's so hard to use, etc etc. Some of the points have a good base, but other ones are just like... Are you serious?


Holy cow! So iPhone users need their hand held to such an extent that they need Apple to tell them what's malware and what isn't? Thank Eris I'm not one of the dweebs!!
Sorry; I didn't realize making things easier for users and 'holding' their hands to protect them from malware was a bad thing. AFAIK, a lot of people who use phones aren't horribly PC literate, and just don't know what to do if they're infected (I think just about all of us can attest to this w/ our pc-illiterate windows friends). Having a mechanism that remotely turns off malicious applications, IMO, would save me from having one of my friend's bother me about it.


So you're a DRM fan huh? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. An Apple fanboy who wants to *own* the software he "buys" would be a contradiction in terms.
1. I'm not a DRM fan. I worked in a big Hollywood studio's anti-piracy department for 1/2 a year as an software engineering intern, and one of the main reasons I decided not to go back there was because I didn't agree with a lot of their standpoints. The job would have paid great, but it's just against my ideals.
2. The only piece of Apple hardware I own is an iPhone. I'm not an Apple fanboy in the least; I run Windows on my desktop, and Ubuntu Linux on my laptop. I enjoy my iPhone, but yes; it has a lot of problems which I have NO problem admitting.

Saying most of the applications in the AppStore are not open source, and quite a few of them you need to pay for, I think DRM in this case was a good move. Regardless of how much I dislike it (I'll never buy DRM music; I usually stick w/ amazon's MP3 service), I honestly can't think of a better way to protect the applications at this point. If they didn't have any protection for them, it would be incredibly easy to drag and drop new (stolen) applications for your iPhone. Starting to sound like another platform with rampant piracy problems - PC Games.


Does the article say:

Apple remotely disables iphone apps?

No, it says

Apple can remotely disable iphone apps.

--

I don't think they will do it anytime soon, but still, they can do it if they want to.

That's a reason to avoid Apple Inc.

--

Another step closer to Trusted Computing?
That's a good reason to avoid Apple because they'll disable malicious applications on your behalf? Like I said above, if they abuse this power, then sure; I completely agree with you. But at this point, it seems like it's really for those exceptional cases to protect users.

[Riffer]

What you say pcjoe is reasonable, and I am trying to keep an open mind on this. But I tell you it just seems fishy. If its such a great idea one would think that they would advertise it, "Added Security Feature". They chose to be quiet about it and the question a lot of people are asking is why?

Given the past business practices of Apple around the absolute control they have over their products, people are suspicious.

[pcjoe]

What you say pcjoe is reasonable, and I am trying to keep an open mind on this. But I tell you it just seems fishy. If its such a great idea one would think that they would advertise it, "Added Security Feature". They chose to be quiet about it and the question a lot of people are asking is why?

Given the past business practices of Apple around the absolute control they have over their products, people are suspicious.
Yeah; that's a good point. Perhaps they deemed it wouldn't be positive marketing. It's basically saying - "Hey, when our stuff gets exploited/hacked, we can turn it off right away!" Which is good, but that's not the exact message you want to be getting across imo.

Who knows though, Apple is relatively hush hush; I was rather surprised that jobs even publicly acknowledged it.