Opera Mini Browser for iPhone Being Demoed at Mobile World Congress

[goosnarrggh]

Exactly. If there is any dynamic content such as Javascript then it will still be executed on the phone and will break the submission rules, whether it's still Javascript or translated to this OBML thingie.

The iPhone SDK rules say that interpreted code cannot be downloaded and run in your App except for code that is interpreted by Apple's published APIs and built-in interpreters.

Apple's Javascript engine is exposed for use by Apps via the published JavaScriptCore Framework. Thus downloaded Javascript is permitted, at least in principle, provided Opera makes use of Apple's Javascript engine instead of rolling their own.

 

[iPrep]

The iPhone SDK rules say that interpreted code cannot be downloaded and run in your App except for code that is interpreted by Apple's published APIs and built-in interpreters.

Wonderful. A single point of failure is always great. Just like IE on Windows when it had 95% market share: Just find one single hole, and you have full access to just about all Windows computers.

More different browsers using different engines means that one security hole won't have that much of a devastating effect.

Apple's Javascript engine is exposed for use by Apps via the published JavaScriptCore Framework. Thus downloaded Javascript is permitted, at least in principle, provided Opera makes use of Apple's Javascript engine instead of rolling their own.

Opera Mini runs everything on Opera's servers, including JavaScript.

 

[goosnarrggh]

Huh? Safari is a mostly Open Source application (WebKit/JSCore) sitting on top of an Open Source operating system kernel and core libraries (Darwin, OpenSSL and a bunch of other UNIX/BSD Open Source stuff).

Opera is NOT Open Source.

Opera Mini in particular is going to be pretty bombproof since it's running on Opera's server and proxying to you a compressed binary image in Opera's own format. If there's anything going to go pear shaped it's at the server end.

History has also shown that the Open Source systems (Linux, OSX...) usually are less vulnerable to attack than the closed ones (Windows, Symbian in the past)

Stop spreading FUD.

To be clear, an open system (which was what was being discussed in the post you're responding to) is a distinct concept from an Open Source system. The two can be present simultaneously in the same box, or they can exist independently from each other.

For example, Microsoft Windows is an open system, in that Microsoft does not exert any control over the user's choice to run whatever applications she wants, from whatever author she chooses. Same goes for the desktop version of Mac OS X, various flavours (but not necessarily every one) of Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, etc...

On the other hand, an embedded system based on, for example, FreeRTOS has, by definition, an open source operating system. But it is a closed system in that the entire system (kernel, drivers, application tasks) are typically statically compiled into a single monolithic binary. In order to introduce any new arbitrary processes, you basically have to recompile everything from scratch, essentially producing a different system than the one you had in the first place.

Alternatively, you may have operating systems that are open by design, but closed in application. For example, Windows XP Embedded is based on an open system, Windows XP. But certain installations may not include many of the userland utilities unnecessary to the intended task of the embedded device (such as "explorer.exe") which make it impractical to startup arbitrary applications.

 

[aegisdesign]

To be clear, an open system (which was what was being discussed in the post you're responding to) is a distinct concept from an Open Source system. The two can be present simultaneously in the same box, or they can exist independently from each other.

ok, i get your clarification but I don't see why you're spreading FUD about Opera Mini still. It's still way more secure than Safari on the closed iPhone since all the execution takes place on Opera's closed, walled off, proxy server rather than in your iPhone. If anything is going to get affected, it's Opera's server.

I also don't see why you're FUDing on open systems being less secure than closed systems. OSX is an open system by your definition with very few security concerns, for example despite there being no gatekeeper deciding what is allowed to run on it.

On the other hand, how many iPhone exploits have there been?

Secunia lists 12 advisories and 113 vulnerabilities for the closed iPhone platform in Apple's apparent tenure as gatekeeper.

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/15128/?task=statistics

For purely comparison sakes, they list 1 advisory and 1 vulnerability on the open Symbian based Nokia E71 - Nokia's best selling model IIRC, but if not, their other phones have equally low vulnerabilities.

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/20930/?task=statistics

Justifying Apple's closed system and it's Apple store policies based on security is just silly. It's entirely about Apple wanting to control what iPhones and iPads get used for. They're almost as bad as US mobile phone carriers in that regard except the agenda seems to be 'squash Flash' or 'squash Opera' or 'squash competition with iTunes'.