Isn't this using the certificate that Apple just revoked?
So only the method to gain it was revoked or the certificate altogether? Lol I'm on medication right now, so I'm easily mixed up.As far as I can tell they revoked the method / certificate via JB through Safari directly on the iPhone / iPad.
So only the method to gain it was revoked or the certificate altogether? Lol I'm on medication right now, so I'm easily mixed up.
Great news. Thanks for the links. Keeping it simple for me.The safari method has been killed.
A person needs to JB via their computer now.
i.e. http://www.idownloadblog.com/2016/07/29/jailbreak-ios-9-2-9-3-3-with-pangu-english/
Then they can add the 1 year certificate.
i.e. http://www.idownloadblog.com/2016/0...ficate-on-your-ios-9-3-3-jailbreak-right-now/
A good write up http://www.idownloadblog.com/2016/07/30/ios-9-3-3-jailbreak-faq/
Great news. Thanks for the links. Keeping it simple for me.
You're welcome.
Simple is how I like it too.
Little curious if they can continue to push data myself.So I am using pangu English version installed via impactor with my own fresh appleid because I can't wrap my head around how the pulled enterprise certificate on Chinese version works.
So the certificate was definitely legitimate and this airplane mode workaround allows you to approve it after it was pulled.
Can whoever controls that cert continue to push to your device via the cert?
I understand they can change aspects of the jailbreaking app, like if anything is serverside. (I don't believe it is, I believe you can rejailbreak your device while in airplane mode). This would also apply to the English version applied via your own cert too yes.
Trying to understand if the door to your device is more open due to the enterprise cert, my hunch is no and that apple has actually protected (in a sense) jailbreakers by revoking the cert. At least protecting in the sense that whoever controlled that cert can't continue to push to our devices.
I'm wondering if saurik avoids this method because it is abusing the apple developer program or if it actually is more vulnerable. In other words, personally I am okay with abusing the dev program, but may not be okay with additional security concerns over the self signed certificate method
Yes. But theres some work that Apple is trying to figure out a way to revoke most certificates. Sounds like one of the teams is already working on a fix though.Just so I understand correctly, if I have the "Beijing Hong Yuan Online Technologies..." certificate I'm good for a year, right?
Yes. But theres some work that Apple is trying to figure out a way to revoke most certificates. Sounds like one of the teams is already working on a fix though.
I heard it mentioned earlier today that Apple is TRYING. I would imagine they couldn't, but you know that when a mouse wants the cheese they'll do anything lol.Apple can't do this change through their end, they'll have to do it through a software update, because iOS only checks that the certificate is valid once and after getting the green light from Apple, it never checks again.
I heard it mentioned earlier today that Apple is TRYING. I would imagine they couldn't, but you know that when a mouse wants the cheese they'll do anything lol.
Yep. Congrats!Just so I understand correctly, if I have the "Beijing Hong Yuan Online Technologies..." certificate I'm good for a year, right?
I'll look and see if I can find it. In a bit of a sick fever haze so might get distracted coughing.I still think they won't be able to, unless they have some tricks up their sleeve, but I doubt it.
They'll probably change how the distribution of certificates works in the future with a new update to iOS.
Can you please link a source that says what Apple is doing?
[doublepost=1470013094][/doublepost]
Yep. Congrats!
View attachment 642837
I heard it mentioned earlier today that Apple is TRYING.
I'm wondering if saurik avoids this method because it is abusing the apple developer program or if it actually is more vulnerable. In other words, personally I am okay with abusing the dev program, but may not be okay with additional security concerns over the self signed certificate method
I'm wondering if saurik avoids this method because it is abusing the apple developer program or if it actually is more vulnerable. In other words, personally I am okay with abusing the dev program, but may not be okay with additional security concerns over the self signed certificate method
saurik ever add anymore input about this?
Suppose if you use a hosts file like setup on your router you could block the address there also. Most Dd-wrt firmware devices setups allow for something like that.not that I'm aware of - I did tweet @qwertyoruiopz and he responded saying there are no security implications utilizing the pulled cert. If the cert was not pulled, I believe there would be implications, but he did not clarify there when I asked.
personally I'm using the english version with the pulled cert now and feel pretty good about it. apparently, that method makes an entry to the host file to keep apple from pulling the auth after the fact. MHB (minimal hosts blocker) added an entry to accomodate this host entry that pangu utilized too. I feel like all the cert is doing it letting the existing, already installed app continue to run.
on a non'jbd device apple could normally revoke the cert from your device too, it is the hosts entry that is keeping it from communicating with the apple cert server / pulling it