4 ms·

I think this same expectation in the Apple ecosystem is why I've received single digit spam from their messaging services. I'm sure there's a better way, but I'

I think this same expectation in the Apple ecosystem is why I've received single digit spam from their messaging services. I'm sure there's a better way, but I'm sure it's also a game of whack-a-mole and this is just the first whack. Freedom to root/jailbreak one's phone is not freedom to use a service, if they don't want rooted phones to use their RCS gateway I don't think they should be forced to allow it.

saurik 3y ago
iMessage runs on desktop Macs and can be easily automated there... in fact, how to do it is so trivial and so commonly known that I just asked ChatGPT how to do it and it told me without balking: it is just a handful of lines of AppleScript, as Apple doesn't even try to make it difficult (and arguably has gone out of their way to support it). I am thereby not sure what mechanism you are contemplating that ties the generation of spam to rooted and/or jailbroken devices?
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Easily automated does not mean Apple’s servers won’t detect spamming patterns and block that device. If the software is not tied to that device- make up a new identity and keep going. But if it’s tied down with SafetyNet or Apple’s DeviceCheck… that gets expensive. Is it worth buying a Mac Mini if it’s easy to automate but will be blocked in hours?
  - saurik 3y ago
    And what does Apple's servers detecting spamming patterns have to do with rooted/jailbroken devices? iMessage fundamentally is used every day by people who can have as much root as they want on their desktop Mac, and so whatever mechanisms we are talking about that differentiate iMessage from whatever other services can't be cited as an argument to take away freedom to modify your software.
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      I am not certain, but at a minimum, I suspect that Apple knows a non-rooted device will be incapable of lying about, say, its serial number; whereas a rooted device might make one up and try repeatedly until it finds one that works. The ability to lie about such identifiers makes a device ban impossible to enforce.
      - saurik 3y ago
        And how does that explain Apple not having an issue with you using iMessage on a desktop Mac? Again: we know the anti-spam mechanisms Apple might have in place do not rely on people being unable to root their devices as iMessage runs on desktop Macs (as well as on jailbroken iOS devices, btw, without any need for subterfuge). Apple simply does not have this restriction that Google is imposing on RCS. Apple's anti-spam comes from a combination of server-side analysis, having a centralized way to enforce bans, and tying accounts to phone numbers, none of which seem to involve banning jailbroken devices as, again: Apple doesn't. (FWIW, I don't know off the top of my head how Apple ties your iMesaage account to your phone number. I vaguely remember that it involves functionality implemented by the carrier, not just trusting the client, and as RCS definitely has to be supported by the carrier there is no issue deploying such here. Regardless, not only would trusting the client be ridiculously stupid in case it ever got hacked, we can continue to lean into the analysis that Apple does not nor have they ever banned jailbroken iPhones from using iMessage, and so we don't even have to dig deeply: we know their security model doesn't rely on something they don't do.)
        eviks 3y ago
        Think it sends a confirmation SMS?
    - voidwtf 3y ago
      Apple has often asserted that software obtained outside their walled garden will do things behind your back on the phone, like using your phone to send spam or collecting your data. I do not agree with this assertion as it implies anyone not playing in their garden is a criminal, but I'd assume these types of behaviors will use that as an excuse. Apple can't put the genie back in the bottle with macOS, they've been trying though. True root requires a special boot sequence otherwise you really only get pseudo-root. They introduced the AppStore to macOS and it was a huge flop because of how restrictive they made it. Microsoft also tried the same with Windows S on ARM devices and eventually were forced to allow disabling S mode. Again, I think there is this impression that I agree with any or all of their behaviors. I don't, I'm only reasoning about why and how in some cases it might be one part of a deterrent. Nothing stops me from jumping over a fence, so why put it up to begin with?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    Doing it server side seems like proof that it doesn't matter whether the user's device is rooted.
  - Sylamore 3y ago
    Allow me to introduce you to the world of the hackentosh...
- voidwtf 3y ago
  I can bypass HDCP trivially, but it's still there. I'm not arguing its effectiveness, but maybe it's a just one of many defense in-depth solutions they intend to implement. I'm guessing if they block jailbroken devices that it may include emulated devices as well. p.s. had to do a double take when I saw your name, been a while since I've done anything jailbreak related with iOS but I really appreciated all the work you did when I did. <3
jevoten 3y ago
> Freedom to root/jailbreak one's phone You don't actually have that freedom - the DMCAs anti-circumvention provision robbed you of the right to unlock your own property. You are merely permitted by the manufacturer to root them, and sometimes, for a 3-year period, the copyright office will let you do it too [1]. The company you are defending, and others like it, use every legal, contractual, technical, and economic means to restrict what you may do, so they can sell it back to you, and so they can control which companies can do it, stopping competition before it can even start. The recent ban on open-source HDMI drivers is another such example [2]. [1] https://www.eff.org/is-it-illegal-to-unlock-a-phone https://www.eff.org/is-it-illegal-to-unlock-a-phone [2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hdmi-forum-to-amd-no-you-cant-make-an-open-source-hdmi-2-1-driver https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hdmi-forum-to-amd-no...
- voidwtf 3y ago
  I can't stand the HDMI LA, they remind me so much of the MPEG LA. It's the same tactics over and over again, take an existing standard or create an open standard, release freely, then iterate and put future versions behind pay-wall and NDA. HEVC is another example of this B.S. in the industry. STOP TRYING TO MAKE PAYWALLED/NDA'D STANDARDS A THING A-HOLES.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    Reminder that in the United States; open standards and patent licensing are not incompatible. HEVC, for example, has public documents how to implement it. You can get all the specs right now. You don’t even need to pay for the standard itself. You do, however, need to pay the people who own patents on algorithms used within the open standard. Do I like it? No. But when there’s 50-100 patent claimants, that’s where MPEG LA shows up to simplify things. You don’t strictly need MPEG LA if you don’t mind negotiating with every patent holder individually.
    - jevoten 3y ago
      Hilariously, legally, software seems to be unpatentable in both the US [1] and EU [2]. Yet those laws are routinely ignored, and we continue to be plagued by software patents. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law#What_software_patents_will_survive_Alice_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_...? [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur... - The wiki states that because of the "as such" clause, the exclusion of software patents does not apply to software that does anything inventive or solves a technical problem. But those are already requirements of patentability for anything, software or not. In other words, this interpretation of "as such" renders that entire clause totally meaningless - it could be struck entirely from the law, and software would be no more or less patentable. Clearly such a reading is absurd, and only shows the willingness of courts to ignore law for business interests.
mdasen 3y ago
> Freedom to root/jailbreak one's phone is not freedom to use a service, if they don't want rooted phones to use their RCS gateway I don't think they should be forced to allow it. The whole argument that Google has been making for RCS is that it's open. However, that isn't actually the case. You're only allowed to use Google's apps (or Samsung's since they had enough market power to force Google to make an exception for them). RCS isn't an open service. It's just Google's chat service that they got carriers to adopt claiming it was open. Google used RCS as a trojan horse to get the whole Android ecosystem to move to a chat service they control - and where they receive all the unencrypted meta-data. They block competing apps from getting access. Google got up on its high horse about supporting an open standard when that was a complete fabrication.
- voidwtf 3y ago
  I agree, RCS should have never been adopted as the messaging standard. We have had several open standards that accomplished nearly all the same goals. Personally I believe a federated standard should have been created, one that would allow people to host their own gateways and easily peer with the large carriers. Maybe something akin to the way IANA and BGP operate.
- jevoten 3y ago
  Sounds like anti-competitive fraud, or at the very minimum, false advertising.

saurik 3y ago

iMessage runs on desktop Macs and can be easily automated there... in fact, how to do it is so trivial and so commonly known that I just asked ChatGPT how to do it and it told me without balking: it is just a handful of lines of AppleScript, as Apple doesn't even try to make it difficult (and arguably has gone out of their way to support it). I am thereby not sure what mechanism you are contemplating that ties the generation of spam to rooted and/or jailbroken devices?

gjsman-1000 3y ago
Easily automated does not mean Apple’s servers won’t detect spamming patterns and block that device. If the software is not tied to that device- make up a new identity and keep going. But if it’s tied down with SafetyNet or Apple’s DeviceCheck… that gets expensive. Is it worth buying a Mac Mini if it’s easy to automate but will be blocked in hours?
- saurik 3y ago
  And what does Apple's servers detecting spamming patterns have to do with rooted/jailbroken devices? iMessage fundamentally is used every day by people who can have as much root as they want on their desktop Mac, and so whatever mechanisms we are talking about that differentiate iMessage from whatever other services can't be cited as an argument to take away freedom to modify your software.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    I am not certain, but at a minimum, I suspect that Apple knows a non-rooted device will be incapable of lying about, say, its serial number; whereas a rooted device might make one up and try repeatedly until it finds one that works. The ability to lie about such identifiers makes a device ban impossible to enforce.
    - saurik 3y ago
      And how does that explain Apple not having an issue with you using iMessage on a desktop Mac? Again: we know the anti-spam mechanisms Apple might have in place do not rely on people being unable to root their devices as iMessage runs on desktop Macs (as well as on jailbroken iOS devices, btw, without any need for subterfuge). Apple simply does not have this restriction that Google is imposing on RCS. Apple's anti-spam comes from a combination of server-side analysis, having a centralized way to enforce bans, and tying accounts to phone numbers, none of which seem to involve banning jailbroken devices as, again: Apple doesn't. (FWIW, I don't know off the top of my head how Apple ties your iMesaage account to your phone number. I vaguely remember that it involves functionality implemented by the carrier, not just trusting the client, and as RCS definitely has to be supported by the carrier there is no issue deploying such here. Regardless, not only would trusting the client be ridiculously stupid in case it ever got hacked, we can continue to lean into the analysis that Apple does not nor have they ever banned jailbroken iPhones from using iMessage, and so we don't even have to dig deeply: we know their security model doesn't rely on something they don't do.)
      - eviks 3y ago
        Think it sends a confirmation SMS?
  - voidwtf 3y ago
    Apple has often asserted that software obtained outside their walled garden will do things behind your back on the phone, like using your phone to send spam or collecting your data. I do not agree with this assertion as it implies anyone not playing in their garden is a criminal, but I'd assume these types of behaviors will use that as an excuse. Apple can't put the genie back in the bottle with macOS, they've been trying though. True root requires a special boot sequence otherwise you really only get pseudo-root. They introduced the AppStore to macOS and it was a huge flop because of how restrictive they made it. Microsoft also tried the same with Windows S on ARM devices and eventually were forced to allow disabling S mode. Again, I think there is this impression that I agree with any or all of their behaviors. I don't, I'm only reasoning about why and how in some cases it might be one part of a deterrent. Nothing stops me from jumping over a fence, so why put it up to begin with?
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Doing it server side seems like proof that it doesn't matter whether the user's device is rooted.
- Sylamore 3y ago
  Allow me to introduce you to the world of the hackentosh...
voidwtf 3y ago
I can bypass HDCP trivially, but it's still there. I'm not arguing its effectiveness, but maybe it's a just one of many defense in-depth solutions they intend to implement. I'm guessing if they block jailbroken devices that it may include emulated devices as well. p.s. had to do a double take when I saw your name, been a while since I've done anything jailbreak related with iOS but I really appreciated all the work you did when I did. <3

jevoten 3y ago

> Freedom to root/jailbreak one's phone You don't actually have that freedom - the DMCAs anti-circumvention provision robbed you of the right to unlock your own property. You are merely permitted by the manufacturer to root them, and sometimes, for a 3-year period, the copyright office will let you do it too [1]. The company you are defending, and others like it, use every legal, contractual, technical, and economic means to restrict what you may do, so they can sell it back to you, and so they can control which companies can do it, stopping competition before it can even start. The recent ban on open-source HDMI drivers is another such example [2]. [1] https://www.eff.org/is-it-illegal-to-unlock-a-phone https://www.eff.org/is-it-illegal-to-unlock-a-phone [2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hdmi-forum-to-amd-no-you-cant-make-an-open-source-hdmi-2-1-driver https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/02/hdmi-forum-to-amd-no...

voidwtf 3y ago
I can't stand the HDMI LA, they remind me so much of the MPEG LA. It's the same tactics over and over again, take an existing standard or create an open standard, release freely, then iterate and put future versions behind pay-wall and NDA. HEVC is another example of this B.S. in the industry. STOP TRYING TO MAKE PAYWALLED/NDA'D STANDARDS A THING A-HOLES.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Reminder that in the United States; open standards and patent licensing are not incompatible. HEVC, for example, has public documents how to implement it. You can get all the specs right now. You don’t even need to pay for the standard itself. You do, however, need to pay the people who own patents on algorithms used within the open standard. Do I like it? No. But when there’s 50-100 patent claimants, that’s where MPEG LA shows up to simplify things. You don’t strictly need MPEG LA if you don’t mind negotiating with every patent holder individually.
  - jevoten 3y ago
    Hilariously, legally, software seems to be unpatentable in both the US [1] and EU [2]. Yet those laws are routinely ignored, and we continue to be plagued by software patents. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law#What_software_patents_will_survive_Alice_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_...? [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur... - The wiki states that because of the "as such" clause, the exclusion of software patents does not apply to software that does anything inventive or solves a technical problem. But those are already requirements of patentability for anything, software or not. In other words, this interpretation of "as such" renders that entire clause totally meaningless - it could be struck entirely from the law, and software would be no more or less patentable. Clearly such a reading is absurd, and only shows the willingness of courts to ignore law for business interests.

mdasen 3y ago

> Freedom to root/jailbreak one's phone is not freedom to use a service, if they don't want rooted phones to use their RCS gateway I don't think they should be forced to allow it. The whole argument that Google has been making for RCS is that it's open. However, that isn't actually the case. You're only allowed to use Google's apps (or Samsung's since they had enough market power to force Google to make an exception for them). RCS isn't an open service. It's just Google's chat service that they got carriers to adopt claiming it was open. Google used RCS as a trojan horse to get the whole Android ecosystem to move to a chat service they control - and where they receive all the unencrypted meta-data. They block competing apps from getting access. Google got up on its high horse about supporting an open standard when that was a complete fabrication.

voidwtf 3y ago
I agree, RCS should have never been adopted as the messaging standard. We have had several open standards that accomplished nearly all the same goals. Personally I believe a federated standard should have been created, one that would allow people to host their own gateways and easily peer with the large carriers. Maybe something akin to the way IANA and BGP operate.
jevoten 3y ago
Sounds like anti-competitive fraud, or at the very minimum, false advertising.