Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Big Mac · 12:12 PM

If this Slashdot summary is correct, Apple's claims appear to be really quite lame prima facia. As others have already pointed out, it would be like saying that a normal computer (that has its full functionality available) or even an unlocked cell phone (as Chuckit points out) could compromise a network.

Apple suggests that the nation's cellphone networks could be open to 'potentially catastrophic' cyberattacks by iPhone-using hackers at home and abroad if iPhone owners are permitted to legally jailbreak their wireless devices. The Copyright Office is currently considering a request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to legalize the widespread practice of jailbreaking. Apple has responded to the request by saying that if the 'baseband processor' software — which enables a connection to cell phone towers — is exposed, then a user could crash the tower software, or use the Exclusive Chip Identification number to make calls anonymously. Apple also thinks its closed business model is what made the iPhone a success. The Vodafone scandal from a few years back showed how a network could be compromised, but that was from within. So, what do you think? Is Apple playing the 'evil genius' hacker card or can 'anyone' with a smartphone and a genius friend pop a US cell tower?"

Chuckit · Jul 29, 2009, 11:49 AM

That's essentially saying a Blackberry or Android phone could crash a cell phone tower because they can run arbitrary code. Nobody seems to be too worried about those grave threats.

shifuimam · Jul 29, 2009, 03:51 PM

The iPhone was a success because it's a very good product for its designed purpose (particularly web browsing). I doubt it would have been less successful had it been offered on other GSM networks in the United States.

It's probably accurate, however, to say that AT&T saw an increase in new service agreements as a result of its exclusive deal to offer the iPhone.

Apple would never support the legalization of jailbreaking or unlocking (which, btw, are two different things - a jailbroken phone is still locked to AT&T's network unless it's also unlocked). It goes against everything they hold dear.

Big Mac · Jul 29, 2009, 03:54 PM

Well, if that's the reason why Apple's come up with this lame excuse, the company should skip the lame excuse and tell the truth to people: Apple doesn't want the iPhone being used in an unregulated fashion, and Apple believes its exclusive partnership with AT&T is one of the keys to allowing the company to make the iPhone as good as it is. There's no need for stupid excuses.

shifuimam · Jul 29, 2009, 04:02 PM

I'm not sure AT&T has anything to do with how good the iPhone is - think about it; the iPod Touch is essentially an iPhone without a cell antenna and SIM slot, and it's just as good. In fact, losing the exclusive partnership might even free up Apple to approve apps that AT&T has put the kibosh on.

Big Mac · Jul 29, 2009, 04:33 PM

Apple could claim that without the AT&T partnership it wouldn't be able to put such powerful hardware in the iPhone and still make the profit they need to make from it. Perhaps that's false. I just expect more from Apple than completely lame excuses that make no sense.

Salty · Jul 30, 2009, 10:42 AM

In all fairness when 2.0 came out the 3Gs were bringing down the cell networks, forcing a much higher rate of dropped calls for all phones, and that was a bug! With the number of iPhones out there, if there actually was a wide spread infection running arbitrary code, I could see them being able to DoS a cell network. On the other hand there's very few BlackBerries out there, the Bold is the only 3G one, though I imagine if every Bold went haywire that would also be a bad thing. Fact is though trying to infect blackberries in general wouldn't make a ton of sense most of them don't use really high speed data connections, (And no I don't consider EVDO to be really high speed.)

Is it a little crazy? Sure but they're not entirely talking out of their asses.

Eriamjh · Jul 31, 2009, 10:05 AM

The possibility of something being used illegally or maliciously doesn't mean that the ability to do everything should be blocked.

Owning a gun is not illegal. Shooting someone with it is.
Jailbreaking is not illegal. Deliberately bringing down a cell system probably is.

Spheric Harlot · Jul 31, 2009, 12:32 PM

^ The problem with that is the "deliberately" part, isn't it?

If jailbreaking actually *does* make your system more susceptible to malware (and it stands to reason that hacking a system with code uncontrolled by Apple will do this to an iPhone), then that malware can be a real problem.

There are Symbian viruses out there, and probably WinMobile viruses as well, but neither of those platforms are as powerful as iPhone OS.

If Apple allows hacking, and hackers suffer a compromise, that might well damage the network, and it most *certainly* will damage the iPhone platform's image.

None of this may be a problem at the moment, but I can understand Apple being a total control freak about this platform.

It's the reason it took them a year to roll out a third-party app solution in the first place.

Chuckit · Jul 31, 2009, 12:52 PM

How are neither of those platforms as powerful as iPhone OS? Don't all three allow you to run arbitrary code on the hardware?

Salty · Jul 31, 2009, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

How are neither of those platforms as powerful as iPhone OS? Don't all three allow you to run arbitrary code on the hardware?

I think ultimately having any EXTREMELY popular 3G device enmass executing code that's spamming up the network is a bad thing. Next best phone that could do a lot of damage would be the Bold, after that probably the Dream/G1.

Spheric Harlot · Jul 31, 2009, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

How are neither of those platforms as powerful as iPhone OS? Don't all three allow you to run arbitrary code on the hardware?

Yeah, but only Android and iPhone OS are built on an open-source *nix(-like) kernel.

King Bob On The Cob · Jul 31, 2009, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

In all fairness when 2.0 came out the 3Gs were bringing down the cell networks, forcing a much higher rate of dropped calls for all phones, and that was a bug! With the number of iPhones out there, if there actually was a wide spread infection running arbitrary code, I could see them being able to DoS a cell network. On the other hand there's very few BlackBerries out there, the Bold is the only 3G one, though I imagine if every Bold went haywire that would also be a bad thing. Fact is though trying to infect blackberries in general wouldn't make a ton of sense most of them don't use really high speed data connections, (And no I don't consider EVDO to be really high speed.)

Is it a little crazy? Sure but they're not entirely talking out of their asses.

Verizon and Sprint's EV-DO currently are faster than AT&T's 3G network... (Implementation counts more than protocol.)

Source: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/3g-speed-test

AT&T sucks soo much.

Salty · Jul 31, 2009, 04:55 PM

Actually Boy Genius recently had their users compare speeds on their 3G phones and apparently nationally ATT fared a lot better than they thought it would. Not saying it's great, but I know even Rogers wouldn't want a ton of jail broken iPhones.

Chuckit · Jul 31, 2009, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

I think ultimately having any EXTREMELY popular 3G device enmass executing code that's spamming up the network is a bad thing. Next best phone that could do a lot of damage would be the Bold, after that probably the Dream/G1.

I think iPhone OS is roughly as popular as Windows Mobile (and less popular than Symbian OS), and that hasn't brought down America's telecom infrastructure yet.

ghporter · Jul 31, 2009, 09:25 PM

A nit to pick here. Both the Slashdot article and common usage are incorrect-the "tower" is just that-a support for antennas. The electronics that actually do anything are housed in some sort of enclosure associated with the antennas (maybe on the roof of a building, in the guts of a power distribution pylon, whatever), and those electronics, including radios, computers and data management boxes are called a "cell site." Each site can consist of anywhere from one "cell" to probably at least 24 cells.

The baseband processor is what connects the phone's radio system with the cell site's. It handles applying the transmit data to the radio signal and extracting the receive data from the radio signal. As such, there's the possibility of some sort of "buffer overflow" attack, I suppose... But it's reaching to say that the common "I want to use this phone on a different network" jailbreak is equivalent to "using the iPhone to maliciously attack the cell infrastructure."

Chuckit · Aug 1, 2009, 12:21 AM

Using the iPhone on a different network means unlocking, not jailbreaking. They're not intimately related. Jailbreaking allows you to run arbitrary code on the phone without going through Apple's approved channels.

turtle777 · Aug 1, 2009, 01:13 AM

A jailbroken iPhone killed my grandma.

True story, only the facts have been changed.

-t

ghporter · Aug 1, 2009, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Using the iPhone on a different network means unlocking, not jailbreaking. They're not intimately related. Jailbreaking allows you to run arbitrary code on the phone without going through Apple's approved channels.

I had thought that unlocking required jailbreaking, as Apple has their official exclusive arrangement with AT&T...

Obviously jailbreaking allows "unauthorized" code to be run, but unlike other phones that often simply require a rather modest firmware change to be unlocked, the iPhone OS seems to be built around preventing unlocking.