iPad 'jailbreak' demoed, compatible with iPhone 3GS, iPod touch

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 96
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post


    The key is that you must have a copy of the application in hand (downloaded/copied from somewhere) so that you can apply the hack that allows the digital signature stuff to run - and of course your iPhone/Touch and now iPad must be jail-broken to get the hack to work.



    Because it is the digital signature that is compromised to allow you fool the OS into thinking it is OK it opens the application to anything, including dangerous code (malicious or just poorly written). It also allows people to apply hacks such as the removal of copyright notices and the copying not only of the app but codes resources which can be traced using gdb or other tools.



    There are times it would have been nice to change a bit of an app just by editing a nib or a SQLite database to add some functionality but that is not allowed under the EULA (please, lets not get off on whether the EULA is enforceable or not since that has been beaten to death).



    I look forward to iPhone OS 4 and the enhancements it will bring to all of us. I don't need to jailbreak my iPhone or my iPad.



    Thanks for the explanation. I was shown an upload of the Tom Tom software a while back and assumed it would work on a jail broken device. As solipsism warns though, I am not prepared to lose my Apple cover and have no interest in such things other than out of academic curiosity.
  • Reply 22 of 96
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


    How much of a security threat is a jailbreak? I am under the impression it's huge potential trapdoor for users, but I could be misinformed.



    Only under certain circumstances is it currently a security threat. IF you install an SSH client and IF you use a easily-guessed password, you are in trouble (just like any computer). Otherwise, you've got nearly nothing to worry about (just like any computer).
  • Reply 23 of 96
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    No, they weren't. They were sued for creating a business around it. Apple has never gone after the OSx86 Project, they've never gone after the iPhone OS jailbreakers, and they never gone after the end user not even Psystar's customers which they would have had a record of due to the court case.



    You need to go back and read Judge Alsup's ruling. There is absolutely nothing in the ruling related to resale.



    Psystar was penalized for things like:

    - Making derivative works, not selling them

    - Making unauthorized copies, not selling them

    - Circumventing DMCA, not selling systems



    Alsup was very, very clear. The actions that Psystar did were illegal - whether they sold the units or not. Please read the rulings before posting on the subject.



    The fact that Apple hasn't gone after jailbreakers or OS X 86 isn't at all relevant to the discussion. It may simply not be worth the effort to them at this point. That doesn't mean they agree with it. In fact, their EULA specifically says that they DON'T agree with it.
  • Reply 24 of 96
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post


    No publisher wishes to produce content for a platform which can be easily hacked enabling the user/pirate to run copied software.



    If what you say is true, then "No publisher wishes to produce content" for Macs and PCs, given that the user is able to run copied software.



    Given that thousands of publishers wish to produce content for laptop and desktop computers, I believe your statement is completely false.
  • Reply 25 of 96
    spuditspudit Posts: 49member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tumme-totte View Post


    No, it's not! I run a small company with 20 employees. Simply put: I rely on Apple to protect me from loads of viruses, problems the user can't solve themselves and other unwanted support issues. Apples protective ways saves me money and time. And gives me the right arguments to choose Apple in front of Windows. I am willing to pay a premium for that if necessary. Since I do not need other stuff like virus programs, support and other problems.



    Whoa there...are you so sure of your superior security?



    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...g_contest.html



    As apple products become more mainstream and popular they are going to become a much greater target for malicious hackers and criminal enterprise. We've just seen the tip of the iceberg. Sorry, but security is one area where Apple better plan on making a huge push. In the past, part of apples security was their dedicated fan base. This benefit has become diluted by the popular public with little or no computer knowledge.



    I'm a proud owner of multiple apple products, but I'm also waiting for the &$)@ to hit the fan.
  • Reply 26 of 96
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    This is absolutely false. There are known exploits that affect jailbroken iPhones, but not other iPhones. Jailbreaking clearly adds a new security issue.







    A variety of reasons, but mostly related to ensuring a standard, uniformly positive user experience.



    What happens when someone tries to update a jailbroken phone and bricks it? They blame Apple.



    What happens when someone has a jailbroken phone and it doesn't work properly? They blame Apple.



    What happens when a jailbroken phone gets a virus? People (especially 'tech' writers) blame Apple.



    What happens when someone with a jailbroken phone calls Apple for help? It costs Apple money to fix something they should have to fix in the first place (even if they tell the customer it's not covered by warranty, it still costs Apple money to make that determination).



    Apple is all about consistency and user experience. Jailbroken phones damage that so don't expect Apple to support you - or encourage you in any way. It just doesn't make sense for them to do so.



    If this is true, then why does Apple allow software installation on a Mac which has not been preapproved?



    ISTM that each and every thing you say could be a reason for Apple to lock down the Mac too. But they have not.



    So I ask again why it is necessary to jailbreak iDevices?
  • Reply 27 of 96
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    I may be wrong but I was of the understanding apps can be shared and loaded into a jail-broken iPhone (so presumably iPad). Newsgroups and the like carry many already so I assume they work although I have no idea if they do or not. If not they are certainly wasting bandwidth uploading them!



    The same is true of the Mac. That can't be a valid reason.
  • Reply 28 of 96
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    You need to go back and read Judge Alsup's ruling. There is absolutely nothing in the ruling related to resale.



    Psystar was penalized for things like:

    - Making derivative works, not selling them

    - Making unauthorized copies, not selling them

    - Circumventing DMCA, not selling systems



    Alsup was very, very clear. The actions that Psystar did were illegal - whether they sold the units or not. Please read the rulings before posting on the subject.



    No, they were sued for creating a business around it. What they were penalized for is irrelevant, what is relevant is why Apple went after them in the first place.
  • Reply 29 of 96
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tumme-totte View Post


    No, it's not! I run a small company with 20 employees. Simply put: I rely on Apple to protect me from loads of viruses, problems the user can't solve themselves and other unwanted support issues. Apples protective ways saves me money and time. And gives me the right arguments to choose Apple in front of Windows. I am willing to pay a premium for that if necessary. Since I do not need other stuff like virus programs, support and other problems.



    What the heck does this have to do with jailbreaking? Your Macs all come "jailbroken" straight from the factory.
  • Reply 30 of 96
    josh.b.josh.b. Posts: 353member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post


    Potential full read-write access to the entire filesystem, and people rarely change their SSH password. You tell ME how safe that is.



    Using the factory-set password on any device at any time is unsafe. So what?



    And where do you get the statistic that resetting a default password is "rare"? Did you just make that up, or do you have a reliable source for the statistic?
  • Reply 31 of 96
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Josh.B. View Post


    If this is true, then why does Apple allow software installation on a Mac which has not been preapproved?



    ISTM that each and every thing you say could be a reason for Apple to lock down the Mac too. But they have not.



    So I ask again why it is necessary to jailbreak iDevices?



    Maybe no one has explained it to you - an iPhone and a Mac are different. Customers have different expectations from a cell phone than from a personal computer.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    No, they were sued for creating a business around it. What they were penalized for is irrelevant, what is relevant is why Apple went after them in the first place.



    Please read the court filings before spewing nonsense. It may be true that Apple chose to go after Psystar for commercial reasons, but the fact that Psystar was selling the computers had no place in the rulings. The rulings stated very clearly that what Psystar did was wrong - not because they were selling them for a profit, but because they violated the EULA and DMCA. Your continued assertions otherwise do not invalidate the very simple, clear court ruling on the subject.



    Please stop with the unfounded nonsense when you apparently haven't even read the relevant court rulings.
  • Reply 32 of 96
    freddychfreddych Posts: 266member
    The EULA is a contract. It isn't a criminal statute that you can violate. When you jailbreak you do violate the EULA. But that's simply breach of contract, not a criminal act.



    Where it can get hairy is where the DMCA comes into play. However the DMCA only makes it criminal if you are doing it for criminal acts, or if the value of the software ripped off exceeds a certain amount.



    Just like if you break your lease, the landlord can sue you for damages but you won't go to jail.
  • Reply 33 of 96
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freddych View Post


    The EULA is a contract. It isn't a criminal statute that you can violate. When you jailbreak you do violate the EULA. But that's simply breach of contract, not a criminal act.



    Where it can get hairy is where the DMCA comes into play. However the DMCA only makes it criminal if you are doing it for criminal acts, or if the value of the software ripped off exceeds a certain amount.



    Just like if you break your lease, the landlord can sue you for damages but you won't go to jail.



    All true. But where did anyone say that you'd go to jail for jailbreaking your phone? That is what is called a strawman argument.
  • Reply 34 of 96
    freddychfreddych Posts: 266member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    All true. But where did anyone say that you'd go to jail for jailbreaking your phone? That is what is called a strawman argument.



    People were calling it illegal to jailbreak.



    In actuality the law allows us to breach contracts where it is efficient. Seems like this is one of those cases. (The value to apple of keeping your device locked down is next to 0, while he value to you of jailbreaking is much higher.)
  • Reply 35 of 96
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freddych View Post


    PIn actuality the law allows us to breach contracts where it is efficient. Seems like this is one of those cases. (The value to apple of keeping your device locked down is next to 0, while he value to you of jailbreaking is much higher.)



    That is, of course, nonsense. There is a great deal of value to Apple to having consistency and not being faced with consumer complaints.



    More importantly, what precedent allows a user to sign a contract and then violate it simply because they want to do something different? That's what you're advocating and it's not supported by any law on the books.
  • Reply 36 of 96
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Please read the court filings before spewing nonsense. It may be true that Apple chose to go after Psystar for commercial reasons, but the fact that Psystar was selling the computers had no place in the rulings. The rulings stated very clearly that what Psystar did was wrong - not because they were selling them for a profit, but because they violated the EULA and DMCA. Your continued assertions otherwise do not invalidate the very simple, clear court ruling on the subject.



    Please stop with the unfounded nonsense when you apparently haven't even read the relevant court rulings.



    Oy vey! Look, it's not that hard. Apple went after Psystar for selling Mac clones. They have never gone after any of the very public projects to run any flavor of OS X on other machines, including the OSx86 Project which made Psystar possible in the first place, or users.



    The ruling is the decision made by the judge. It is not made by Apple! Apple didn't submit a ruling to the courts. The judge's decision, called a ruling, is a RESULT of the case Apple presented.





    PS: May be true? What other reasons could there possibly be if not relating to commerce?
  • Reply 37 of 96
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Just curious if a jail broken iPad 3G will be able to make phone calls.
  • Reply 38 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by s4mb4 View Post


    jailbreaking --> installous --> stealing.



    i do not mind ethical uses of JB'ing, but to many kids out there want to JB so they can get free apps.



    Those who want to steal will do it regardless. If it's not Apple, it'll be something else.



    I view guys like these as free R&D for Apple!
  • Reply 39 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Just curious if a jail broken iPad 3G will be able to make phone calls.



    What's with this stuff about iPads not being able to make phone calls!?



    Heard of Skype? Truphone? Text+?
  • Reply 40 of 96
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Oy vey! Look, it's not that hard. Apple went after Psystar for selling Mac clones. They have never gone after any of the very public projects to run any flavor of OS X on other machines, including the OSx86 Project which made Psystar possible in the first place, or users.



    The ruling is the decision made by the judge. It is not made by Apple! Apple didn't submit a ruling to the courts. The judge's decision, called a ruling, is a RESULT of the case Apple presented.





    PS: May be true? What other reasons could there possibly be if not relating to commerce?



    That's all completely, 100% irrelevant.



    Someone asked whether jailbreaking the iPad was wrong or not. According to Alsup's decision, it is clearly wrong - a violation of both the EULA and DMCA (regardless of whether you do it for commercial or personal reasons). The court has ruled that it's wrong.



    Whether Apple is going to go after you for doing it is a completely different, and irrelevant, topic.
Sign In or Register to comment.