4 ms·
I’d assume that erasing the shutdown log is also a security measure from Apple, attackers could use it to better understand crash conditions or device behavior.
by darkamaul 1y ago
I’d assume that erasing the shutdown log is also a security measure from Apple, attackers could use it to better understand crash conditions or device behavior.
That said, if we take Apple’s stance on privacy seriously, users should also have deep inspection capabilities on their own devices. After all, they’re supposed to own them.
- sim7c00 1y agowhat privs u need to read shutdown log vs what privs u need to see running programs? apple always trying to hide things and lock people more out of how the device works. they use privacy as an excuse and even sue and jail ppl who try to look at things properly.
- frontfor 1y agoWhen did Apple “sue and jail ppl” for “try to look at things properly”? I’m pretty sure Apple isn’t legally allowed to jail people.
- charcircuit 1y ago>After all, they’re supposed to own them. Just because you own a device, that doesn't mean the manufacturer is obligated to add features you want.
- user2722 1y agoI think he/she was being ironic. You either own it or Apple owns it. Since there is no sideload and the criptographic keys belong to Apple, then the device belongs effectively to Apple and you just rent it for a fixed fee. You can't both own it and not own it depending on the situation, thus exposing Apple's hypocrisy as a well-intended parentified gatekeeper just protecting the users/childified adult users.
- charcircuit 1y agoGoods for the mass consumer all work like this. The manufacturer creates a product and consumers by it if those features provide them value. If a device doesn't have a feature such as online diagnostics they are free to buy a different product instead. If people really want to add their own features they are free to modify the device. It's more economical to just buy another device which is why you don't see people replacing the parts needed to develop your own software on an iPhone. Easy user modification of the OS is not a feature of iPhone and if added could hurt the quality of the product. Another way to think of this is imagine if Apple burned the OS into a ROM chip. That doesn't make them the owner of the device because the user can't write to the ROM chip. By that logic no one would own the device because no one can update it, but that can't really be true.
- torben-friis 1y agoI think a difference is that apple has the means to change the behavior of the device after the fact in ways that the person that purchased the product doesn’t. This is unique to modern technology, and the fact that they sell you the house keeping sole ownership of the keys to certain rooms is indeed worth examining I think.
- cbarrick 1y ago> If people really want to add their own features they are free to modify the device. Except that they are not actually given that freedom. The entire notion of free software is that users should be free to modify the software stacks of their devices. Very few consumer devices are free in that sense. You can't run a custom OS on an iPhone.
- brookst 1y agoFree software is a value prop, not a law. And it is counter to the value prop that one entity is entirely responsible for all of the software (even if Apple doesn’t write every line of code, they are responsible for every bit that ships). Not everyone cares about the bits. It’s true that the vast majority of consumers prefer having a single supplier to having freedom to run their own bits.
- throwaway290 1y agoAn attacker during research would root the device anyways and find any crash conditions even better than shutdown.log. 99.999% users will not root. So this targets users.
- dagmx 1y agoIt is quite difficult to jailbreak any recent iOS device. To the best of my knowledge, the last jailbroken SoC was the A12 and there haven’t been publicly known jailbreaks since then. That’s not to say private methods don’t exist but none seem to have been documented as used in the wild at least.