4 ms·

How is Apple's decision to no longer support the original iPad and also refuse to open the platform not deliberate? It is still a perfectly viable piece of har

How is Apple's decision to no longer support the original iPad and also refuse to open the platform not deliberate? It is still a perfectly viable piece of hardware for many uses, no matter how much technology has improved.

zepto 5y ago
The reason they haven’t opened the platform is to protect the security model. That is deliberate, but has nothing to do with planned obsolescence.
- KozmoNau7 5y ago
  That is complete nonsense, and a cop-out at best. Opening up the original iPad to other operating systems and/or DIY software does not mean handing over the signing keys for currently supported platforms. In case of a running iPad, an Apple-authorized update could be pushed to the OS to unlock it and allow it to run binaries directly. Apple could also document any hardware features that would allow someone to put an iPad into "free-for-all" mode. Presumably this would require opening up the device to attach a serial cable to a JTAG connection or something similar. There are many options for Apple to open up unsupported devices for hobbyists to tinker on, and it would completely in line in the original hacker-friendly Apple spirit. Instead Apple refuses to do so, and insist that opening up an 11 year old, long unsupported device, by claiming that it would somehow compromise their current security model.
  - zepto 5y ago
    What you have described completely destroys the security model. > In case of a running iPad, an Apple-authorized update could be pushed to the OS to unlock it and allow it to run binaries directly. Which of course an attacker would be able to do too. > Apple could also document any hardware features that would allow someone to put an iPad into "free-for-all" mode. Presumably this would require opening up the device to attach a serial cable to a JTAG connection or something similar. Which of course a police department, the FBI, or the agents of an oppressive regime or anyone who bought a JTAG device off ebay would be able to do too. These are exactly the reasons they don’t do these things - if they did, they would be opening attack vectors. Security is hard. I’m not saying it’s impossible to achieve this, but it’s not simple.
    - KozmoNau7 5y ago
      We're talking about a device that is completely unsupported by its manufacturer. You already have no expectation of security or integrity when the last available OS and security update is over 5 years old by now. Opening up access to install your own software would have great potential to increase the security of the device, not least because you can actually run current and patched versions of any software. What you're arguing for is security by obscurity.
      - zepto 5y ago
        The unlocking mechanisms you proposed would have to be present in devices right from the start. Not just in devices that are unsupported. Nobody is talking about security through obscurity. This is about not introducing easily explored weaknesses into all devices, supported or not.
        KozmoNau7 5y ago
        If you have physical access to a device, you can already tap the memory bus or countless other places. Relying on a device itself to be secure when it is in your adversaries' hands is futile. Open the hardware, use secure software and keep your storage encrypted, preferably on removable storage.
        zepto 5y ago
        > If you have physical access to a device, you can already tap the memory bus or countless other places This is complete bullshit. iOS devices use an SOC so there is no way to ‘tap the memory bus’ without destroying the processor. iOS decides do in fact resist access even when they are in the hands of an adversary. Also it seems like you don’t know that the storage on iOS devices is already encrypted.
        KozmoNau7 5y ago
        So an SoC-based device is simply impervious to physical attacks? That's impressive! The power of the RDF is still strong.

zepto 5y ago

The reason they haven’t opened the platform is to protect the security model. That is deliberate, but has nothing to do with planned obsolescence.

KozmoNau7 5y ago
That is complete nonsense, and a cop-out at best. Opening up the original iPad to other operating systems and/or DIY software does not mean handing over the signing keys for currently supported platforms. In case of a running iPad, an Apple-authorized update could be pushed to the OS to unlock it and allow it to run binaries directly. Apple could also document any hardware features that would allow someone to put an iPad into "free-for-all" mode. Presumably this would require opening up the device to attach a serial cable to a JTAG connection or something similar. There are many options for Apple to open up unsupported devices for hobbyists to tinker on, and it would completely in line in the original hacker-friendly Apple spirit. Instead Apple refuses to do so, and insist that opening up an 11 year old, long unsupported device, by claiming that it would somehow compromise their current security model.
- zepto 5y ago
  What you have described completely destroys the security model. > In case of a running iPad, an Apple-authorized update could be pushed to the OS to unlock it and allow it to run binaries directly. Which of course an attacker would be able to do too. > Apple could also document any hardware features that would allow someone to put an iPad into "free-for-all" mode. Presumably this would require opening up the device to attach a serial cable to a JTAG connection or something similar. Which of course a police department, the FBI, or the agents of an oppressive regime or anyone who bought a JTAG device off ebay would be able to do too. These are exactly the reasons they don’t do these things - if they did, they would be opening attack vectors. Security is hard. I’m not saying it’s impossible to achieve this, but it’s not simple.
  - KozmoNau7 5y ago
    We're talking about a device that is completely unsupported by its manufacturer. You already have no expectation of security or integrity when the last available OS and security update is over 5 years old by now. Opening up access to install your own software would have great potential to increase the security of the device, not least because you can actually run current and patched versions of any software. What you're arguing for is security by obscurity.
    - zepto 5y ago
      The unlocking mechanisms you proposed would have to be present in devices right from the start. Not just in devices that are unsupported. Nobody is talking about security through obscurity. This is about not introducing easily explored weaknesses into all devices, supported or not.
      - KozmoNau7 5y ago
        If you have physical access to a device, you can already tap the memory bus or countless other places. Relying on a device itself to be secure when it is in your adversaries' hands is futile. Open the hardware, use secure software and keep your storage encrypted, preferably on removable storage.
        zepto 5y ago
        > If you have physical access to a device, you can already tap the memory bus or countless other places This is complete bullshit. iOS devices use an SOC so there is no way to ‘tap the memory bus’ without destroying the processor. iOS decides do in fact resist access even when they are in the hands of an adversary. Also it seems like you don’t know that the storage on iOS devices is already encrypted.
        KozmoNau7 5y ago
        So an SoC-based device is simply impervious to physical attacks? That's impressive! The power of the RDF is still strong.