It doesn't matter if you use Touch ID, 6 digit, or alphanumeric passcodes. If the exploits can install things as root, lock screen security is useless. That only protects from physical access to the device.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Browser-Based iOS 9.1/9.2 Jailbreak Wins $1M Bounty, Will Be Sold for Corporate and Government Use
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It doesn't matter if you use Touch ID, 6 digit, or alphanumeric passcodes. If the exploits can install things as root, lock screen security is useless. That only protects from physical access to the device.
I disagree. Change the "or" to "and" then I'd agree. 'Or' requires any one condition to be true. 'And' requires all conditions to be true.
Ghostery has its own iOS 'browser'. It might not be able to block things as effectively as under OS X but I am sure it can block quite a number of things.
The US government hasn't operated 'in the interest of the people' in decades. Where have you been?
This brings up another issue.. would something like 1Password be affected? IIRC, it has its own browser, and since most of its use would be with your password vault unlocked, passwords and info stored there could be exposed.
BL.
Except that in this case the authorities are being told about the bug (though they might have to pay for it) so they can use it to break into your house without the need for a search warrant (well the FISA court has to issue one, sort of but it would be a secret warrant) and without alerting the owner of the house that the authorities paid you a visit.
Ha! You must be (or have been) a coder.
What you say is absolutely correct, in code. In English, not so clear.
Ignore text messages from your mobile service provider? And don't use a search engine to get to any page you don't know yet?
That's I think the most interesting question on this topic. Some companies might buy this exploit to protect against via firewalls and such. And thus they would only try to break into the own phones to verify the functioning of the exploit. That would sound like completely legal transactions. It's just selling of information (that itself wasn't stolen but discovered using publicly available information, one would think). Of course, the government could outlaw the sale of such information (as it for example restricts the export of certain information).
That's the whole exploit here is that things can run without user interaction or even knowledge.
Again, I'd have to say that this is circumspect.
For the browser exploit, one would have to open the browser of choice, and physically visit the website in question. That in itself is user interaction.
The text message vector is another issue altogether. Does the message have to be read, opened, or just sent? There aren't enough details about this particular attack vector to actually know..
BL.
It says 'reading the text message' in the article. Meaning you still would have to be tricked into reading it (one way to trick me would be to masquerade as a message from my mobile service provider).
Yes, as I mentioned in my previous reply, for a web site there is an aspect of user interaction of going to a web site, but, again, that's what many of us use our devices for. It's a completely normal and usual thing to go to a web site on your device for most people and no one would know if something was installed or not. Sure, the likelihood of it happening is rather low, but the point is that simply doing usual and normal things on your device can result in this being exploited, there isn't some additional user interaction that would be needed or even necessarily something to notice if it happened.
If you have message previews enabled for notifications then that could potentially do it as well.
I edited my response. I actually agree with you that its dangerous, but its been that way for android phones, and its up to users to be wary.
I'm seeing Windows with 218 vulnerabilities in that chart, not including RT. Definitely more than OS X. If that's a false statement, they should specify the number of vulnerabilities that are cross-version. Or, just lump all versions together like they did with OS X.Nope, dont fall for the hype... OS X has/had more vulnerabilities in 2014.
Or if you don't believe that one goto CVE, they show OS X having 114 for 2014, windows had 38.
2015 is showing OS X with 335!!!! vulnerabilities, where as windows have 135 server, 130 for Win8
Either way, you can't make an accurate comparison with that chart.
In this case there wouldn't be a message that would pop up or anything like that. Sure, avoiding bad/weird/questionable sites is pretty much a given no matter what, but considering this could potentially show up even on good sites (as those can be hacked or some service they use can be hacked) then simply doing something completely normal and innocuous like going to your favorite popular tech blog could perhaps get this going without any interaction from you or anything signifying to you that anything has happened.
Those are unavoidable and fall into the category of a virus. It seems like this hack just makes iphones more like android phones, where the user has more access but also more vulnerabilty.
That would be more of a worm than a virus. A virus would have to affect one device/machine, then go to infect another from that one that they already infected, whereas a worm would all have to originate from the same location..
BL.
Installing your own code (via root access) on somebody else's phone is the first step. Injecting yourself into Webkit (which the 1Password browser uses) to capture the passwords that 1Password sends to the web is the next thing. Tricking 1Password into revealing password after password by simulating that the user is visiting the respective sites is yet another step. Though the attacker might just inject code into 1Password itself, not impossible but it would constitute a separate exploit.
That's the reason your fingerprint is stored in the secure element, ie, in a part of processor that is separated on the hardware level which is as much as we know impossible to access remotely (and even with hardware access extremely difficult).
Nah, if its a website that can put something in your phone without your acknowlegment and then your phone is infected, its a virus. A worm means it can replicate itself to other phones.
You're not getting it. a site isn't putting something on your phone without your acknowledgement, as you are willingly going to that site. You have to visit that site for that site to do something to your device. Depending on how they set it up will determine if it is with or without acknowledgement, but then the damage is already done. You visited the site, which is all the acknowledgement the site needs.
You or visit requests a GET from their webserver, and the webserver responds with the content. No acknowledgement needed or required.
BL.
