Re: NEWS: iPhone becomes phisherman's friend

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:55:25 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<ld6t93dss7odvcagmhvuegao8n7tvnj3g2@4ax.com>:

>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:36:51 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
>Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>Check out how many patches have been rushed out by Apple to deal with
>>Mac OS exploits, and then check out what the OS in the iPhone is based
>>on.
>
>Either you're implying that OSX is immune from exploits, or you're
>implying that Apple fix them quickly. Either comment is incorrect and
>misleading.

Strawman, I implied neither.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:51:18 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:55:25 +0100, Mark McIntyre
><markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
><ld6t93dss7odvcagmhvuegao8n7tvnj3g2@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:36:51 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
>>Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>Check out how many patches have been rushed out by Apple to deal with
>>>Mac OS exploits, and then check out what the OS in the iPhone is based
>>>on.
>>
>>Either you're implying that OSX is immune from exploits, or you're
>>implying that Apple fix them quickly. Either comment is incorrect and
>>misleading.
>
>Strawman, I implied neither.

Strawman yourself, and disingenuous to boot. Tell us what the heck you
were trrying to imply then, instead of making glib non-informative
remarks.
--
Mark McIntyre

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:40:36 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<kqs1a39fl4f7qga7c6dobmqmdehpg8ssni@4ax.com>:

>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:51:18 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
>Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:55:25 +0100, Mark McIntyre
>><markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
>><ld6t93dss7odvcagmhvuegao8n7tvnj3g2@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:36:51 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
>>>Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Check out how many patches have been rushed out by Apple to deal with
>>>>Mac OS exploits, and then check out what the OS in the iPhone is based
>>>>on.
>>>
>>>Either you're implying that OSX is immune from exploits, or you're
>>>implying that Apple fix them quickly. Either comment is incorrect and
>>>misleading.
>>
>>Strawman, I implied neither.
>
>Strawman yourself, and disingenuous to boot. Tell us what the heck you
>were trrying to imply then, instead of making glib non-informative
>remarks.

My post was quite clear. Suggest you read it with more care and less
attitude.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:16:17 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<78511304620070717181617elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.c om>:

>At 17 Jul 2007 16:14:12 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/17/iphone_phishing_risk/>
>>
>> Security shortcomings in the design of Apple's iPhone might make it
>> easier to mount phishing and cross-site scripting attacks.
>
>While it may to true, I think "proprietary" OS devices like
>Palm/WinMo/iPhones PDAs are generally MORE secure than laptop/desktop PCs
>because they are essentially immune from virii, trojans, keyloggers, etc.
>targeted at Wintel boxes.

Dangerous assumption -- proprietary code isn't subjected to scrutiny
(peer review), and thus tends to be much riskier than open code.

>I know when curiousity leads me to investigate a scam site I do it from
>my WinMo phone knowing that whatever they intend to throw at me isn't
>likely to even run on my device, and in the off chance it were to target
>WinMo, my phone can't execute it without my permission.

You actually have no way of knowing that. And that's the point.
"Security is a process, not a product." -Bruce Schneier

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 20:11:46 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-F1C5DB.20114617072007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>:

>In article <nalq93pnipsvqigd2jitvg44b8vhf7b74p@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Because Apple professes to be way better than the other guys. That kind
>> of hubris inevitably attracts rebuttal.
>
>oh, John. You keep walking right into things as if you can't see them.

Nope.

>I can't imagine you didn't see this one. This tells me that you are
>just plain retarded.

Nope.

>(To the lurkers: John professes to be way better/more knowledgeable
>than anyone else.

Nope.

>That kind of hubris inevitably attracts rebuttal,
>which John is incapable of taking.)

Nope.

0 for 4. Par for your course.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

At 16 Aug 2007 06:44:53 +0000 John Navas wrote:

> Dangerous assumption -- proprietary code isn't subjected to scrutiny
> (peer review), and thus tends to be much riskier than open code.


It's also not nearly as well documented, requiring more reverse
engineering and effort to hack. Couple that with smaller profile/market
penetration (compared to desktop versions of Windows) and you have a
higher effort/lower "payoff" scenario for a malware author.


> >I know when curiousity leads me to investigate a scam site I do it from
> >my WinMo phone knowing that whatever they intend to throw at me isn't
> >likely to even run on my device, and in the off chance it were to
target
> >WinMo, my phone can't execute it without my permission.

> You actually have no way of knowing that. And that's the point.
> "Security is a process, not a product." -Bruce Schneier


I have no way of knowing the laws of gravity will still be operating
tomorrow, either, but it's a pretty safe assumption based on past
performance and my limited knowledge of physics.

While I can't be 100% sure my PPC won't be infected, I can be 99.999%
sure that it's less likely to be attacked than my PC.


Citation? (Saving you the trouble...)

http://www.virusbtn.com/conference/v...s/Bontchev.xml

"The paper examines the security features introduced in the newer
versions of the mobile operating systems - Symbian R3, Windows Mobile
6.0, J2ME - and explains why they are much less vulnerable to self-
propagating code. While we stop short of claiming that these environments
are virus-proof, we maintain that viruses are unlikely to become a huge
problem for them."


Besides, even if my PPC phone stumbled accross an as-of-yet non-existant
bit of malware, it'll be quicker and easier to restore a 128MB ROM-based
device than a networked PC with a half-dozen hard drives attached!

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:40:05 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:40:36 +0100, Mark McIntyre
><markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in

>>Strawman yourself, and disingenuous to boot. Tell us what the heck you
>>were trrying to imply then, instead of making glib non-informative
>>remarks.
>
>My post was quite clear. Suggest you read it with more care and less
>attitude.

I did. It was still gibberish, glib and noninformative.

BTW I presume you've been on holiday for the last month - you're
replying to a post I made on 20th July.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uqe9c392vuot6j14ktmmi5sv2mihj072bt@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:40:05 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
> Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:40:36 +0100, Mark McIntyre
>><markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
>
>>>Strawman yourself, and disingenuous to boot. Tell us what the heck you
>>>were trrying to imply then, instead of making glib non-informative
>>>remarks.
>>
>>My post was quite clear. Suggest you read it with more care and less
>>attitude.
>
> I did. It was still gibberish, glib and noninformative.
>
> BTW I presume you've been on holiday for the last month - you're
> replying to a post I made on 20th July.
> --
> Mark McIntyre


He will say he was sailing. (Yeah Right) He was proved wrong about who was
offered the iphone 1st. It was shown to him, but like always he is a jerk
when it comes to admitting he was wrong. So he stays clear for a few weeks
then comes back and try's to dispute what was said. I guess he thinks by
being gone for a few weeks we will forget.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:58:40 GMT, "Kevin Weaver"
<kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<kM3xi.58192$5j1.52106@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> :

>He will say he was sailing. (Yeah Right)

Think whatever fantasy you wish, but we were 1st to finish and 2nd on
corrected time in the recent HDA Island Tour. That's me driving in
<http://lyonsimaging.smugmug.com/gallery/3338809#186024335>. And you?


>He was proved wrong about who was
>offered the iphone 1st. It was shown to him, but like always he is a jerk
>when it comes to admitting he was wrong. So he stays clear for a few weeks
>then comes back and try's to dispute what was said. I guess he thinks by
>being gone for a few weeks we will forget.

Wrong on all counts. Again. Get a life.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:03:18 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
<uqe9c392vuot6j14ktmmi5sv2mihj072bt@4ax.com>:

>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:40:05 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John
>Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:40:36 +0100, Mark McIntyre
>><markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in
>
>>>Strawman yourself, and disingenuous to boot. Tell us what the heck you
>>>were trrying to imply then, instead of making glib non-informative
>>>remarks.
>>
>>My post was quite clear. Suggest you read it with more care and less
>>attitude.
>
>I did. It was still gibberish, glib and noninformative.

You must have a reading comprehension problem.

>BTW I presume you've been on holiday for the last month - you're
>replying to a post I made on 20th July.

Nope -- just very busy. Unlike some others here, I have a life.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:34:53 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
<MqYwi.315$ax3.49@fe097.usenetserver.com>:

>At 16 Aug 2007 06:44:53 +0000 John Navas wrote:

>> You actually have no way of knowing that. And that's the point.
>> "Security is a process, not a product." -Bruce Schneier
>
>I have no way of knowing the laws of gravity will still be operating
>tomorrow, either, but it's a pretty safe assumption based on past
>performance and my limited knowledge of physics.
>
>While I can't be 100% sure my PPC won't be infected, I can be 99.999%
>sure that it's less likely to be attacked than my PC.
>
>Citation? (Saving you the trouble...)
>
>http://www.virusbtn.com/conference/v...s/Bontchev.xml
>
>"The paper examines the security features introduced in the newer
>versions of the mobile operating systems - Symbian R3, Windows Mobile
>6.0, J2ME - and explains why they are much less vulnerable to self-
>propagating code. While we stop short of claiming that these environments
>are virus-proof, we maintain that viruses are unlikely to become a huge
>problem for them."

Speculation. I'm reminded of smug but ultimately embarrassing claims
made by creators or Wireless Equivalent Privacy (WEP), which can now be
hacked in seconds.

>Besides, even if my PPC phone stumbled accross an as-of-yet non-existant
>bit of malware, it'll be quicker and easier to restore a 128MB ROM-based
>device than a networked PC with a half-dozen hard drives attached!

Image restore takes only a few minutes, and my PC is almost certainly
better protected than your PPC phone.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:5ta4d3tltfsbg1fnide7u2dnbce9ma8ffm@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:58:40 GMT, "Kevin Weaver"
> <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> <kM3xi.58192$5j1.52106@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> :
>
>>He will say he was sailing. (Yeah Right)
>
> Think whatever fantasy you wish, but we were 1st to finish and 2nd on
> corrected time in the recent HDA Island Tour. That's me driving in
> <http://lyonsimaging.smugmug.com/gallery/3338809#186024335>. And you?
>
>
>>He was proved wrong about who was
>>offered the iphone 1st. It was shown to him, but like always he is a jerk
>>when it comes to admitting he was wrong. So he stays clear for a few weeks
>>then comes back and try's to dispute what was said. I guess he thinks by
>>being gone for a few weeks we will forget.
>
> Wrong on all counts. Again. Get a life.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>


Cop out. It was shown on your fav website you enjoy to quote so much that
the iphone was offered to Verizon first. Go look it up on the register. Call
it what you want. If you call it BS, Then why do you keep posting from that
site ?

Oh, I understand. If it fits you post it. If not, You dispute it. Can't have
it both ways.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:51:23 -0700, miso@sushi.com wrote in
<1188197483.579030.40240@z24g2000prh.googlegroups. com>:

>I'm baffled by all this iphone talk It is so yesterday. The refurbs
>are piling up:
><http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/dealzmodo...-at-the-apple-
>refurb-store-291147.php>
>What is interesting is all the effort to put the iphone on T-mobile.
>The hatred of AT&T is really intense. More than I would have guessed.

FICTION: Intense hatred.

FACT:

Hotz, who has met legendary hackers Kevin Mitnick and John T. Draper,
doesn’t believe in doing malicious work. He said he was motivated to
crack the iPhone simply for fun. And, he acknowledged, because his
parents had a T-Mobile family plan and wouldn’t pay for AT&T iPhone
service.

<http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070824/ENT09/70824053>

>I'm waiting for the 8320 on T-mobile. Really, no need for the iphone
>when you can have a real keyboard on a Blackberry.

Different strokes for different folks:
I much prefer the (HSDPA) RAZR V3xx.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Aug 27, 3:31 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:51:23 -0700, m...@sushi.com wrote in
> <1188197483.579030.40...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups. com>:
>
> >I'm baffled by all this iphone talk It is so yesterday. The refurbs
> >are piling up:
> ><http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/dealzmodo...-at-the-apple-
> >refurb-store-291147.php>
> >What is interesting is all the effort to put the iphone on T-mobile.
> >The hatred of AT&T is really intense. More than I would have guessed.
>
> FICTION: Intense hatred.
>
> FACT:
>
> Hotz, who has met legendary hackers Kevin Mitnick and John T. Draper,
> doesn't believe in doing malicious work. He said he was motivated to
> crack the iPhone simply for fun. And, he acknowledged, because his
> parents had a T-Mobile family plan and wouldn't pay for AT&T iPhone
> service.

Not hatred of AT&T by that particular hacker, but rather hatred of
AT&T by potential iPhone customers. Remember, AT&T wireline did
backflips for the Bush Crime family regarding NSA surveillance.

>
> <http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070824/ENT0...>
>
> >I'm waiting for the 8320 on T-mobile. Really, no need for the iphone
> >when you can have a real keyboard on a Blackberry.
>
> Different strokes for different folks:
> I much prefer the (HSDPA) RAZR V3xx.

At the moment, Blackberry doesn't have any phones with HSDPA. I rather
have the RIM OS and build quality. Moto phones have a cheap made in
China feel.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

miso@sushi.com wrote:

> What is interesting is all the effort to put the iphone on T-mobile.
> The hatred of AT&T is really intense. More than I would have guessed.

It's not hatred of AT&T per se, it's that many people want to buy
iPhones for the browser, mainly using Wi-Fi, and don't want to pay the
high monthly cost. The unlocked iPhone allows you to use a very low
priced prepaid plan from T-Mobile.

> I'm waiting for the 8320 on T-mobile. Really, no need for the iphone
> when you can have a real keyboard on a Blackberry.

A heavy text messaging and e-mail user would not buy an iPhone, but the
iPhone has a better web browser.