BREAKING: Multiple exploits found in 1.1.3. Jailbreaking may come sooner!

Discussion in 'iPod touch Hacks' started by TheSpaz, Jan 23, 2008.

  1. TheSpaz macrumors 604


    Jun 20, 2005
  2. Four20 macrumors 6502a


    Sep 22, 2007
    why trust the site?

    looks like it just started. . .and i don't see a link with any proof
  3. Pippen Man macrumors regular

    Jan 15, 2008
    If anyone out there that hasn't purchased the $20 Software Upgrade, WAIT! This Jailbreak will probably unlock the .plist or string that's in the update, making your Jailbroken iPod touch work with the update without spending the dough.

    Can't wait, dear gawd, I know what I'll be doing sometime this week! :):apple:
  4. TheSpaz thread starter macrumors 604


    Jun 20, 2005
    Jailbreak could come as early as tomorrow! I will be staying on 1.1.2 until Apple fixes the stuttering video bug... I hate it.
  5. Heather1 macrumors regular


    Jan 13, 2008
    does any body know when the 1.1.4 firmware be released ?! Together with the SDK ?!!

    Thanks in advance.
  6. lellis2k macrumors 6502


    Oct 2, 2007
    Sheffield, UK
    sdk is believed to be released late feb, no news about 1.1.4, probably more like late march
  7. -Dark Angel- macrumors 6502

    Nov 13, 2007
    I don't know why they would want to try and jailbreak so soon to the SDK being release. o_O?
  8. andybno1 macrumors 68040


    Nov 6, 2007
    Liverpool, UK
    if they have multiple exploits then if they release one jailbreak apple doesn't get to know about the others thus giving us keen jailbreakers a rest from waiting for the sdk release for the new jailbreak
  9. Phil A. Moderator

    Phil A.

    Staff Member

    Apr 2, 2006
    Shropshire, UK
    Is this a strange, parallel universe where exploits (AKA security holes) are considered a "good thing" :D
  10. TheSpaz thread starter macrumors 604


    Jun 20, 2005
    I think it's kind of unfair for Apple to lock us out of our own devices. It's ours... we paid for them... we should be able to do whatever to them as long as it doesn't break the law. If they would have just opened the platform up for us in the beginning, there'd be no such thing as jailbreaking. I think of the iPod touch as a tiny computer running OS X. On a desktop computer, we can see all the files and we have access to nearly everything OS X can do but, the iPod touch is being closed up tight? People run 3rd party Apps on their Macs all the time and the Apple warranty doesn't have to cover damage caused by them... only the makers of the software. Why isn't this the same on the iPod touch/iPhone?
  11. Four20 macrumors 6502a


    Sep 22, 2007
  12. SirithX macrumors 6502


    Feb 21, 2007
    San Francisco
    Like others have said, security exploits are bad, but at the same time trying to break open a closed device in order to open it up and give it more use outside factory parameters is true Apple user fashion, and is indeed ironically a staple trait that Steve Jobs himself used to challenge people with during his Think Different campaign.
  13. Quasiportnoy macrumors regular

    Oct 1, 2007
    Baton Rouge, LA
    If they'd opened the platform in the beginning, there would be room for all kinds of malware and harmful hacks. Apple makes consumer electronics products with the intent of making it easy on people to use their product. They shoot for the whole "It just works" ideal.

    Also, the iPod touch is heavily a port of the iPhone. The iPhone isn't just Apple's baby, but AT&T also has a huge stake in it, so it's very risky to let people install what they want willy-nilly. It isn't just a phone, it's a smart phone connected to the internet. So it is just as susceptible to worms, viruses, trojans, and hacking as a computer. As an always-on internet device (in the case of the iPhone), it would be potentially very harmful to AT&T if such a problem arose.

    I have a feeling that this is why the SDK has taken so long in coming: Apple wasn't sure if it was necessary, and AT&T probably didn't want it at first. But after hacking started happening, the two companies needed a secure channel through which they could provide applications. This is where the SDK and iTunes enter the picture.

    Buying apps from iTunes also allows people to purchase applications like they do music: safely, reliably, and securely. It only makes sense that iTunes would be the way, and I'm sure Apple will screen the apps that make it into the store for bugs and malware. (It will be interesting to see how rigorous and restrictive they are, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.) This way people don't have to worry about downloading from various sources on the internet and potentially screwing their iPods/iPhones. If it's in iTunes, it's safe, end of story, just like with movies or music (no risk of viruses, unlike torrents or illegal download sites).

    And I suppose that one could fault Apple for so obviously porting their iPhone stuff to the iPod touch, but the touch was meant to be an "iPhone for the rest of us" who didn't want the phone part...just the cool touch screen iPod. So for ease of development, it's in Apple's best interest to keep the firmware virtually identical.

    My two cents. Now go ahead, blast me for being an Apple sycophant.:rolleyes:

    (For the record, I have a jailbroken touch, but this is my choice and my risk. And I feel that it's Apple's responsibility to fix all the little holes exploited by jailbreakers: unsuspecting people could easily stumble upon a site that would steal their internet info without their knowledge by executing code similar to a jailbreak, but harmful.)
  14. Shanesan macrumors 6502


    Jul 29, 2006
    I'm sure it's because we're about to be rudely awoken to the fact that this "SDK" that they're going to release will let people create applications to send to iTunes, where iTunes will force the user to PAY for an application that the coders wanted to release for free/donations (I'm planning on donating to the guys who did iBlackjack. It's a really neat little program) but can't because it has to be sent/delivered through iTunes, for securities sake of course.

    So tackle the last bastion of freedom before Apple tries to tie it down again.
  15. Consultant macrumors G5


    Jun 27, 2007
    Ever heard of PODCASTS? Almost all are FREE on itunes.
  16. Skitals macrumors newbie

    Jan 11, 2008
  17. Shanesan macrumors 6502


    Jul 29, 2006
    And Podcasts are, what, MP3s? How much damage can an MP3 do?

    You have to pay for safety. When it's Business-to-Business relations, Business-to-Consumer always gets shafted.
  18. motulist macrumors 601


    Dec 2, 2003
    I'm no Apple apologist, but it's completely fair of them to keep their products as open or closed to modification as they like. You have the right to modify the device as much as you like, it's your property to do with as you wish. You have the right to not buy the product if you don't like that the device doesn't include a warranty and continued support for devices which have been modified. But they're under no moral obligation to continue servicing your device if you choose to alter it.

    You may want it to be different, but there's nothing unfair about the way Apple does it. Though I do agree with you that it's frustrating and disappointing to know that your device is capable of so much more than Apple currently allows.
  19. deverill macrumors newbie

    Jan 17, 2008
    It's nothing special...

    (or legal obligation)
    You mean just like my car's water pump that's no longer under warranty after I replace it myself? I don't get why everyone thinks they deserve to hack AND be covered under warranty. Apple's not going to arrest you for hacking your iPod/iPhone, but don't expect them to support it with updates and restores if you munge it up. Furthermore, don't blame them for adding in patches to try to prevent hacking - it's in their best interests. Wanna customize your device? Fine, just don't look to Apple to patch that flaw or add new features to your customized device.

Share This Page