Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

In article <1i672tb.1txsex61guies3N%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <[email protected]> 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

---

› See More: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [top-posting fixed]
>
>
> Did you not understand anything I wrote above?
>

[email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote in
news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%[email protected]:

> 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 <[email protected]>,
"Ness Net" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > [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 <[email protected]>,
Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote in
> news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%[email protected]:
>
> > 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

In article <[email protected]>, pltrgyst
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:17:00 -0700, "Ness Net"
> <[email protected]> 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


From outside the US...LOL and bravissimo!

ZnU <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote in
> > news:1i66kzq.17de1xaime2uvN%[email protected]:
> >
> > > 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.

So the first app to write for it is Terminal...

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Peter Hayes wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> So the first app to write for it is Terminal...

Uh, it's been out since July.

The Chicken Littles are still confused why the world hasn't come to an end
and AT&T's "West Coast network" has not been taken down.


--
Mike

In article <[email protected]>, Ness Net
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

He wasn't being a 'usenet cop' -- he was fixing something YOU screwed
up. So that you would look less like a moron and ass.
But you showed him, huh?

> 2nd - I read it and contend that you are not correct.
And give no reasons, no logic, no evidence, nothing but a repeat of the
same article written by someone else.
You totally ignored the evidence offered that makes your comment look
ignorant. You proved nothing, cited no help, gave no response.
You just made a decision without reasons?

Why do you even post to a discussion forum?

The top / bottom posting argument is basically a losing proposition.
One side will hurl insults, (like below) and cop some sanctimonious
attitude (like below). Not realizing that by their actions, they show
the world exactly the opposite of their intent. (moron and ass).
Do you top post your business e-mail?

The intent of my post(s) was to show just one reason (a very good one)
why IP people don't want the iPhone anywhere near their networks.
It was not to argue the excruciating details of the OS itself. I will
leave that to the more anal than I.

Oxford makes wild, unsubstantiated and inflammatory statements. Yet, you
attack those that make the rational (and factual) ones.



"Mitch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:201020072102352824%[email protected]...
>
> He wasn't being a 'usenet cop' -- he was fixing something YOU screwed
> up. So that you would look less like a moron and ass.
>
> And give no reasons, no logic, no evidence, nothing but a repeat of the
> same article written by someone else.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ness_net" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The top / bottom posting argument is basically a losing proposition.


yes. there will always be usenet-illiterate buffoons who foolishly
top post without understanding what they did, and then defending
their ignorance when they are scolded.

--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <[email protected]>
in news:[email protected]

And there is that sanctimonious attitude I was talking about.

Sure, I could get into a lengthy pissing match with you over something so stupid.
However, as a literate individual, I won't.

I fully understand and need to defend nothing. It does however speak
volumes about YOU when you make the below comments.

Extricate the bug up your sphincter.


"james g. keegan jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> yes. there will always be usenet-illiterate buffoons who foolishly
> top post without understanding what they did, and then defending
> their ignorance when they are scolded.
>

"Ness Net" <[email protected]> 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.

no ness - he is correct.

nobody will take you seriously unless you bottom post.

it makes no logical sense to the reader if the post is at the top.

learn the rules or don't post.

-

none <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ness Net" <[email protected]> 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.
>
> no ness - he is correct.
>
> nobody will take you seriously unless you bottom post.
>
> it makes no logical sense to the reader if the post is at the top.
>
> learn the rules or don't post.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Unfortunately, the bottom line is that he claims to be 'literate',
then proves through his actions that he is not.

Unfortunately, the action of crossposting to multiple groups is action
that is inevitble to hitting upon readers who are more sensitive to
ease of communiciation, eg, the top-posting criticism.

Unfortunately, while Ness *claims* that he won't argue the point, he
then proceeds to defend himself (again), which once again means that
his own actions prove his words to be a lie.

Unfortunately, it all reveals that Ness is nothing better than a troll
or hypocrite.

Unfortunately, Google doesn't have a button I can push to cause this
fool's computer to literally blow up in his face.

Fortunately, its a clear day and with low winds, so I'll be out scuba
diving when Nate reads this :-)


-hh

At 22 Oct 2007 04:25:07 -0700 -hh wrote:

> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?



On the other hand:


A: Because you've already read the question(s) in the prior posts in the
thread.

> Q: Why does top posting make sense?
>
> > Q: Why does top posting make sense?
> >
> > > Q: Why does top posting make sense?
> > >
> > > > Q: Why does top posting make sense?





Ideally posting in-line makes the most sense, if responding to multiple
points, but top posting makes perfect sense when adding a comment to
prior comments, and frankly is much preferable, IMO, to the idiots who
can't be bothered to trim 20 posts worth of text before adding their 2-
cents...

Personally, I don't care how someone posts if what they're saying adds to
the conversation. Whining about posting styles doesn't, so by default
Ness' post was more valuable than yours (or mine.)