Re: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> -
>

As always, you just don't get it....

Example:
Blackberry = business tool
iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
future)

Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.

As usual.

"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> As always, you just don't get it....
>
> Example:
> Blackberry = business tool
> iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
> future)

it was radically changed about 8 hours ago. didn't you get the memo?

no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
point in the game.

> Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.

What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
them.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
> will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
> developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
> of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
> point in the game.
>


Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an actual clue.

Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus percent
of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.

They won't give a **** if 3rd party apps are loaded. The DEVICE is flawed.

You can go on and on and on like you do - you have less than ZERO credibility at this point.

Every post continues to proves it - again and again.

Like this one... Just another fantasy based wish from a deluded, fanatic fanboy.

In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> .
> >
> > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> > against apple at this point in the game.
> >
>
>
> Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> actual clue.
>
> Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.

This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.

OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.

Security is just one of many areas where the fact that the iPhone is
using a slimmed down version of a real desktop OS gives Apple
significant advantages over its competitors. (Well, except possibly its
Linux-based competitors, but at least in the US Linux-based phones don't
seem to have gotten anywhere.)

[snip]

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> > .
> > >
> > > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> > > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> > > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> > > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> > > against apple at this point in the game.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> > actual clue.
> >
> > Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> > percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> > BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
>
> This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.

It most certainly isn't.

> OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
> signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
> three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
> operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
> invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
> whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.

I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user system
but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.com >,
notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> > > news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> > > > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> > > > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> > > > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> > > > against apple at this point in the game.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> > > actual clue.
> > >
> > > Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> > > percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> > > BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
> >
> > This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> > iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
>
> It most certainly isn't.

Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,
therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
prevent processes from doing whatever they like.

The "don't run anything as root" mantra has been repeated so many times
that people have some sort of irrational fear of it. It's true that it's
less secure than the alternatives offered by multi-user operating
systems... but running OS 9 or Windows 98, one was essentially always
running as root, and the same is true of most mobile operating systems
today.

[snip]

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191348,00.asp

First, the iPhone root password was broken. OK, it happens. But now it seems
that all applications run on the iPhone as root. Can you say biggest
security blunder of the 21st century to date?



"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-3F7E6C.00393118102007@news.individual.net...
> In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
>> .
>> >
>> > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
>> > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
>> > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
>> > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
>> > against apple at this point in the game.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
>> actual clue.
>>
>> Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
>> percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
>> BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
>
> This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
>
> OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
> signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
> three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
> operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
> invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
> whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.
>
> Security is just one of many areas where the fact that the iPhone is
> using a slimmed down version of a real desktop OS gives Apple
> significant advantages over its competitors. (Well, except possibly its
> Linux-based competitors, but at least in the US Linux-based phones don't
> seem to have gotten anywhere.)
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> "More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War
> coming
> out any other way."
> --George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4,
> 2007
>

In article <x6ednZmsveuoPoranZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

[top-posting fixed]

> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-3F7E6C.00393118102007@news.individual.net...
> > In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> >> news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> >> .
> >> >
> >> > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> >> > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> >> > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> >> > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> >> > against apple at this point in the game.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> >> actual clue.
> >>
> >> Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> >> percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> >> BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.
> >
> > This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> > iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
> >
> > OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
> > signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
> > three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
> > operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
> > invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
> > whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.
> >
> > Security is just one of many areas where the fact that the iPhone is
> > using a slimmed down version of a real desktop OS gives Apple
> > significant advantages over its competitors. (Well, except possibly its
> > Linux-based competitors, but at least in the US Linux-based phones don't
> > seem to have gotten anywhere.)
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2191348,00.asp
>
> First, the iPhone root password was broken. OK, it happens. But now it seems
> that all applications run on the iPhone as root. Can you say biggest
> security blunder of the 21st century to date?

Did you not understand anything I wrote above?

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:17:00 -0700, "Ness Net"
<richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

>First, the iPhone root password was broken. OK, it happens. But now it seems
>that all applications run on the iPhone as root. Can you say biggest
>security blunder of the 21st century to date?

Wasn't W re-elected in 2004?

-- Larry

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.com >,
> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
> >
> > It most certainly isn't.
>
> Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
> permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
> Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,

The iPhone uses a version of OS X, so we're told, which certainly isn't
a single-user OS. Do you believe Apple's developers turned it into a
single-user OS? I very much doubt it, that would be throwing away major
development potential further down the line, like a multi user
permissions based iPhone, possibly using fingerprint access.

> therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
> prevent processes from doing whatever they like.

Why not? Separate root processes from user processes with only Apple
updates having root access.

With third party apps now available, how long do you suppose it'll be
before some enterprising hacker creates an exploit to record calls and
e-mail them to him? Most would be boring as hell, but dropping that
exploit on Jobs' iPhone might be very interesting, or even Sweaty's,
assuming he'd get one... Easier to implement if you know the user is
running as root.

> The "don't run anything as root" mantra has been repeated so many times
> that people have some sort of irrational fear of it.

The mantra is there for a very good reason, and if people have an
irrational fear of running as root that's because they don't understand
why.

> It's true that it's
> less secure than the alternatives offered by multi-user operating
> systems... but running OS 9 or Windows 98, one was essentially always
> running as root, and the same is true of most mobile operating systems
> today.

And look at the shambles that was Windows 98 security. MacOS had its
fair share of exploits too.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

In article <1i672tb.1txsex61guies3N%notinuse2@btinternet.com> ,
notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.com >,
> > notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> > > > platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.
> > >
> > > It most certainly isn't.
> >
> > Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
> > permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
> > Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,
>
> The iPhone uses a version of OS X, so we're told, which certainly isn't
> a single-user OS. Do you believe Apple's developers turned it into a
> single-user OS? I very much doubt it, that would be throwing away major
> development potential further down the line, like a multi user
> permissions based iPhone, possibly using fingerprint access.

I don't believe they cut the multiuser features out of OS X on the
iPhone. They're just not currently using them for anything, by all
accounts.

> > therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
> > prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
>
> Why not? Separate root processes from user processes with only Apple
> updates having root access.
>
> With third party apps now available, how long do you suppose it'll be
> before some enterprising hacker creates an exploit to record calls and
> e-mail them to him? Most would be boring as hell, but dropping that
> exploit on Jobs' iPhone might be very interesting, or even Sweaty's,
> assuming he'd get one... Easier to implement if you know the user is
> running as root.

I think this is the way they'll probably go when they officially open
the phone to third-party apps. They're not doing it now, though.

And all of this is beside the point. The discussion was whether running
as root on a multiuser OS was any more dangerous than the normal state
of affairs on a single-user OS. It's not, therefore the fact that the
iPhone currently runs everything as root doesn't represent any kind of
security problem for the iPhone *relative to most other mobile devices*,
contrary to what the iPhone's detractors have tried to claim.

[snip]

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

1st - top posting - bite me. Self appointed Usenet cops can
kiss my ass.

2nd - I read it and contend that you are not correct.


"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-281E90.15014618102007@news.individual.net...
>
> [top-posting fixed]
>
>
> Did you not understand anything I wrote above?
>

notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.c om:

> I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user system
> but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
>
> -

Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it supports,
with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because you are never
root?

I had a live Iphone, that wasn't a demo, in my hands at a cafe while the
medical student that owned it was perusing my Nokia N800 Linux box on wifi.
It had a really neat protective skin on it I wish I had for my N800 besides
the leather case. I think I really liked it because it was FLAT BLACK
making the display appear much brighter without your eyes being blinded by
the glitz.

He said he was ordering an N800 and two 8GB SDHC cards from buy.com
tonight....(c; Oops!


Larry
--
You can tell there's extremely
intelligent life in the universe
because they have never called Earth.

In article <SZidnUkJxMCKQ4ranZ2dnUVZ_uygnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> 1st - top posting - bite me. Self appointed Usenet cops can
> kiss my ass.
>
> 2nd - I read it and contend that you are not correct.

Please explain how using a user account that ignores user-based
permissions on a multiuser OS is meaningfully different form the normal
state of affairs on an OS that doesn't have user-based permissions.

> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-281E90.15014618102007@news.individual.net...
> >
> > [top-posting fixed]
> >
> >
> > Did you not understand anything I wrote above?

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In article <Xns99CDBD0C047E2noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
> news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%notinuse2@btinternet.c om:
>
> > I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user
> > system but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
> >
> > -
>
> Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
> accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it
> supports, with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because
> you are never root?

Everything on an iPhone currently runs as root. The reason you can't do
whatever you like with this access is simply because there's no
interface (graphical or otherwise) that lets you do it.

[snip]

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007