10 ms·

Anyone who wants to should be able to buy such a device, as it isn't like any of the machine code you are getting elevated access to is even secret (you can dow

• saagarjha 6y ago
  Not only a flat gesture, I think this by this they are actively gunning for companies like Corellium and will have a huge amount of control over security researchers who join the program. Disclose your bugs to us on our terms or have your access yanked? Pretty yikes. (And this is completely ignoring the rest of your comment, because it's pretty clear that they don't want consumers with debuggable iPhones.)
  • tptacek 6y ago
    We don't have to speculate about this; Apple is actively gunning for Corellium. Your best tip-off to that was them suing Corellium.
    • saagarjha 6y ago
      Oh, I know that Apple is gunning for Corellium, my question was if this specific thing was meant to be another arm of that dispute (it probably is).
      • tptacek 6y ago
        In the sense that Apple probably wouldn't have done it if Corellium had never existed, sure.
        • saurik 6y ago
          The reason I imagine this comes up as a thread of discussion is because Apple promised they would do this long before Corellium existed--at least four years ago: the meeting I was at--and I heard it had likely even been shelved!... but it has seemingly now become something to bother with doing, and as far as anyone can tell it is because Apple's lawsuit with Corellium non-trivially tries to claim that Corellium can't use certain "obvious" defenses because their emulator somehow competes with and carves into the market for Apple's promised security research device program, which is in some sense the Daikatana of this community. So to people who might otherwise think "oh, Apple loves security researchers: look at this program as proof!" the real thought should be "Apple is likely only doing this at all to help them win a lawsuit and injunction against a company which provides the tools used by a lot of security researchers" (a lawsuit which also wants to push through Corellium so they can attack their customers).
          • tptacek 6y ago
            Sure. I think we're all on the same page about this.
• markstos 6y ago
  Consider Android is open source and people have been able to get root access on devices since the beginning. Still, it seems for overall security to have this program exist then not have a program at all.
  • saurik 6y ago
    To be fair (as a problem we have is that there is a small oligopoly of players and they all mostly suck), the original Android G1 was a locked down device: to get root on it required you to buy the Android ADP1 (which cost a lot more and had serious limitations with respect to apps from the Market); we only got root on it due to a bug (so the same as with iOS... it was just a dumber bug ;P). But yeah: Android wouldn't be usefully open source to anyone if you couldn't at least build your own device to test and run it on, and they clearly support that and they even provide emulators (and, thankfully, more recent, first-party Google devices are nice and open: Google learned their lesson there pretty quickly).
  • oneplane 6y ago
    The 'android' that you get from your phone vendor definitely isn't open source. The AOSP project is and the distro from your vendor will have parts of it that can be traced back to the source. But the android ecosystem as a whole is not 'open source' and not 'open' like people like you tell about. Almost all access is due to hacks and bugs, not because the boot loader and the OS came with the option for user access on the inside.
    • Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      > The 'android' that you get from your phone vendor definitely isn't open source. But it's so, so far ahead of iOS in openness. You can sideload apps. You can spin up Android in a VM. You can buy Android devices with unlocked bootloaders and install your own roms or drivers or kernel modules or whatever else. The system can be made yours to command. iOS doesn't even let me run my own code in userland.
      • oneplane 6y ago
• Despegar 6y ago
  >that they are even working right now on suing Corellium, a company which makes an iPhone emulator (which again, has strong legal precedent), in order to prevent anyone but a handful of highly controlled people from being able to debug their platform. Anyone can debug their platform, as they have been. You just need to be approved for this specific program. Apple's case against Corellium is about intellectual property, and it's frankly going to be a slam dunk in court. There's already established precedent with Apple v. Psystar with an almost identical set of facts.
  • saagarjha 6y ago
    > Anyone can debug their platform, as they have been. Apple would not like “anyone” debugging their platform. The fact that people have jumped through hoops to do so is considered a bug and something that they actively try to prevent.
    • Despegar 6y ago
      That doesn't change the fact that you're able to do security research on Apple products without their permission.
      • saagarjha 6y ago
        Apple gives me a locked box, I complain that I can't open it. You're saying that I shouldn't because some people have figured out how to pick the specific lock they're using, even though Apple doesn't want to people to do that and their next lock is not pickable using that technique anymore. Oh, and the pickable locks will be obsolete in a few years. Do you see the problem?
        • xondono 6y ago
          > Apple gives me a locked box, I complain that I can't open it. Well, if you don’t like closed boxes, just don’t buy a closed box.
• ladberg 6y ago
  If anyone could buy this device, then tons of scammers would buy them, install malware, and sell them to people as normal phones. They could then control banking apps and whatever else they wanted.
  • except 6y ago
    I doubt they would cost the same as regular iPhones.
    • ladberg 6y ago
      Does it matter what they cost if scammers could net tens/hundreds of thousands for a single one? (Assuming they pick targets right)
      • pvg 6y ago
        A scam that requires an individually targeted bespoke device that nets tens or hundreds of thousands (how does that even work? how would the proceeds be exfiltrated untraceably?) is just a really expensive way to have a very short career as a scammer.
      • strbean 6y ago
        People with tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars are buying iPhones from random third parties?
        • sneak 6y ago
          It's easier than that. You simply modify the special phone to broadcast the unlock PIN being entered in realtime. You set the background to the same wallpaper as the target's phone. You swap it physically for the target's phone on the table, netting you the target device. Moments later, when they pick up a phone that looks just like their own and enters a PIN several times, you now have both their phone (from when you swapped it) and the PIN to unlock it (from the broadcast), allowing you full use of the device, offline, at your leisure. The target is now confused why their phone isn't unlocking, and may not detect the attack for hours. Apple really should put these audit devices in a big, boxy, couldn't possibly-be-mistaken-for-an-iPhone case.
• devwastaken 6y ago
  If only open source software licenses could have predicted the level of vertical integration control their software would be used in. Apple continually violates the good will of developers and puts forth their own bad will. I'm tempted to make up an 'MIT minus non-free platforms' agreement. If the OS can't be completely emulated and freeley installed without restriction, then you can't use the library. I'd like to see Apple survive having to recreate half their software from scratch.
  • saagarjha 6y ago
    Sounds like you might want GPL?
    • searchableguy 6y ago
      Probably AGPL
  • exikyut 6y ago
    They made APFS in (probably?) less than ten years :( The license structure you suggest sounds kind of interesting.
  • rimliu 6y ago
    Go ahead. See how nobody uses your library.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• rkagerer 6y ago
  The move is in line with their reputation. Handing out a bunch of research devices which come with a catch is a great way to exert more control and influence over vulnerability reporting, and skew the bargaining power when it comes to disclosure. I expect the motivation is largely genuine to encourage security research that bolsters their platform, but also stems in part from an increasing fear of PR ramifications outside their control. "I'm handing out a bunch of water bottles; sign up here. The contents remain my property so when you're done please urinate back into them and return to me on demand."
  • saagarjha 6y ago
    Honestly had to think about whether your offer was a good deal.
• jimbob45 6y ago
  In fairness, no one is really developing for the .NET ecosystem without VS licenses either. I’m sure it’s theoretically possible but MS de facto runs the same scam.