Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

If it was a browser exploit, wouldn't that put all users at a great risk, and also put more pressure on Apple to rapidly patch?

IIRC, the first jailbreakme.com used a PDF exploit that Apple patched REALLY fast, for the very reason you cited.

May have been TIFF?

Aye, I believe it was the TIFF exploit.

Yes. Good thing it's not.

I do agree, though, that visiting a page, pressing a "jailbreak" button and finding Cydia installed and running, was, to use the scientific term, slick.

In such a case what is to stop a malicious site having a "free porn" button which installs something much more nasty.

In the case of JailbreakMe 2.0 (the exploit last year), the makers of the JB actually released a Cydia patch for that exact reason. In that instance, the JB'ed device was in that regard more secure than the stock device.

Nothing, of course.

In which case I'm surprised there wasn't a widespread epidemic of malware infected iOS devices.

Because that would require someone to invest time and money in writing malware which will only ever make it on to a handful of devices and will be removed when those devices are updated.

There are a huge number of iphones in circulation. If the malware had jailbroken privileges would it not be able to disable the update mechanism on the phone?

Apple will want to rapidly patch this either way. They still see it as a large security flaw, even if it needs a physical connection, and they hate jailbreaking.

4.2.1 is still vulnerable to a remote safari exploit, capable of gaining root. There's no way for iPhone 3G users to update past that point. They don't care about security.

Do you mean the JailbreakMe web-based exploits? JailbreakMe is not available for iOS 4.2.1. It's available for 3.1.2-4.0.1 and 4.3-4.3.3 - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JailbreakMe#Compatible_iOS_vers... for details.

Yeah, but there's nothing stopping someone from porting JailbreakMe to 4.2.1 — it already works on 4.2.8 for the Verizon iPhone 4, and the other versions are similar enough. The hardest part would be the CPU (armv6 vs armv7), but it's clearly possible.

To be clear, you're arguing that [Apple doesn't show adequate concern] about (a theoretical) security (risk to a handset that was discontinued 2 years, 8 months ago)?

A proven exploit that is publicly known, on a device that millions of people still browse the web with daily. Just because it is discontinued doesn't mean that it doesn't exist anymore.

3 years should not be the lifecycle of a highly advanced device costing many hundreds of dollars. That is utterly insane.

Well hon, welcome to the mobile industry. Here's your complimentary chalice of mercury.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact