EULA only "binds" an end user with which you have a contractual relationship. Not a competitor. You need to look to copyright/patent law to deal with that.
Just proves that you have no idea about what you are talking about.
Where did I say that an EULA applies to competitors? As has become standard for you, you make things up that have no bearing on reality.
The EULA applies to anyone who buys the product. Whether they're a competitor or a 'normal' customer is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
Ok, first of all, telling someone they like to follow rules is a personal attack? It's just a type of person. I personally found the suckups in school to be arrogant, annoying, and repulsive, but it's still not a "personal attack" to assume such characteristics in someone. Oh, but wait, it's ok to call all jailbreakers software pirates and thieves right?
So calling me arrogant, annoying, and repulsive is not a personal attack?
That's a pretty confident statement, care to back it up?
Because jailbreaking EXPLOITS preexisting security problems, it doesn't CREATE the security problems. Of course, once you have a jail broken device, a user has full control over it. At that point he or she can be as permissive or stupid as he desires, which may give others access to the device, too. This can be desired or an undesired side effect of thoughtless actions. But neither is a direct side effect of jail breaking, it's at best a consequence of what's possible once the device is jail broken.
The security issue is not if the user has full access to the device (which he could have if Apple would deliver an iPad like a Mac where the user has full admin access), but that the security mechanisms can be bypassed. If Apple shipped the iPad/iPhone/iPod like a Mac with full admin privileges enabled for the legitimate users, then the security could be much better than it is today, and it would keep the bad guys out while letting users own their device.
Right now we must pray for Apple to make insecure devices just so we can get full admin access on a device we bought with our hard earned money and have the ability to truly own what we own. Unfortunately, with the current state of things, that also means bad guys can potentially use the same security holes and get into the devices without our consent and steal our data.
So while I'm against security hole, I hope there will be some until Apple gets enlightened and lets users own their devices. Maybe Woz could try to talk some sense into Steve?
This toaster approach to computing is a hell of a lot different from the thought that led to the Apple II.
Unfortunately, Jobs always wanted to create closed devices (see the original Mac!) Only Jobs' and Apple's misfortunes forced the Mac to become an open platform, now that they are thriving again, the old tendency is back to lock everything up.
Apple went from Hippy company to Disney store. Kind of disgusting to even think of it.
It should also be noted, that EULA's only cover software, not hardware. I might want to buy an iPad to install Linux on it and use it as a control computer for a DIY robot. Can't do with jail-locked devices. Unfortunately, with so many more important things on the plate, it's unlikely that the legislature will fix these issues by mandating certain consumer rights for digital devices.
That's a pretty confident statement, care to back it up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
This is absolutely false. There are known exploits that affect jailbroken iPhones, but not other iPhones. Jailbreaking clearly adds a new security issue.
No, these "known exploits" are bad reporting. Jail breaking allows full access to the device by users. Users are then free to enable networking functionality, such as ssh, etc. IF and ONLY IF the users use jail breaking to enable such functionality (equivalent to turning on "remote login" in Mac OS X' System Preference's Sharing preferences) AND they don't change the default passwords, then these devices become exploitable.
But they don't become exploitable because they are less secure, they become exploitable because the default passwords happen to be publicly known.
User stupidity can make any device insecure. If you have PasswordPlus or SplashID on your iPhone but then a sticky note on the back with the PIN to get at the data these apps store, then that's also not a security problem with the iPhone or these password storage programs, but it's simply a security break down due to a dumb user.
So, no, Jail breaking causes no breakdown in security, it exploits security holes preexisting in the devices to give owners full access to the devices they bought with their hard earned money.
So calling me arrogant, annoying, and repulsive is not a personal attack?
Sadly, the rest of your argument was no better.
Sorry, you're not worth the time of day.
I DIDN'T call you that. If someone doesn't find "rule followers & enforcers" arrogant, annoying, and repulsive, and still calls you a rule follower, that's not a personal attack. Stop trying to twist my words man. It's like if I said I find truck drivers to be dirty fat bastards, then called someone a truck driver when they're driving a truck. The two are separate. I didn't call them a dirty fat bastard, I called them a truck driver.
You're just using this far fetched reason as an excuse to not acknowledge the inarguable points I made.
Ugh, whatever dude. You go ahead and keep telling people what to do with their property
"You need WiFi to call over Skype. Skype calls over 3G networks are currently not allowed due to contractual restrictions."
That is the error message I get.
you have to use the app 'fring' if you want to use your skype account over 3G. apparently skype is dragging their heels when it comes to releasing a 3G capapble version, despite both AT&T and apple having removed the restrictions.
This is absolutely false. There are known exploits that affect jailbroken iPhones, but not other iPhones. Jailbreaking clearly adds a new security issue.
The only security issue connected to jailbreaking that I've read about occurs only if the user leaves the password for ssh access at its default value. Change it from its factory default setting and you are as secure as anyone else (assuming a nontrivial password is chosen). Incidentally this is probably the number one sin against secure operation in general: leaving a password at factory default value.
The EULA applies to anyone who buys the product. Whether they're a competitor or a 'normal' customer is irrelevant.
...
That is just nonsense though it is not surprising one might reach that conclusion. According to contract law a EULA can masquerade as a contract and people can claim a EULA is a contract but that does not make it so. It will probably always be possible for a plaintiff to find a judge who slept through his course in Contracts but when you go far enough up the food chain the stark failure of EULA's will remain unless there is a rather fundamental change in contract law. Contracts play a crucial role in a lawful society so diluting them with the EULA nonsense is incredibly reckless. Just to summarize wishing EULA's were contracts does not make it so.
That is just nonsense though it is not surprising one might reach that conclusion. According to contract law a EULA can masquerade as a contract and people can claim a EULA is a contract but that does not make it so. It will probably always be possible for a plaintiff to find a judge who slept through his course in Contracts but when you go far enough up the food chain the stark failure of EULA's will remain unless there is a rather fundamental change in contract law. Contracts play a crucial role in a lawful society so diluting them with the EULA nonsense is incredibly reckless. Just to summarize wishing EULA's were contracts does not make it so.
I guess you're another one who never read Alsup's decision.
Note that I didn't say EULA was a contract. That doesn't mean it isn't binding. Read the Apple v Psystar decision before parading your ignorance.
The only security issue connected to jailbreaking that I've read about occurs only if the user leaves the password for ssh access at its default value. Change it from its factory default setting and you are as secure as anyone else (assuming a nontrivial password is chosen). Incidentally this is probably the number one sin against secure operation in general: leaving a password at factory default value.
So far, that's correct: the SSH exploit is the only one, and it is really just a password issue at heart.
Asa a practical matter, there are no added security issues involved in jailbreaking.
Just to pipe in, it would be trivial to write a trojan for jailbroken iPhones. This is a known exploit in addition to the SSH exploit.
And since, as far as I know, there is no antivirus (yet) for jailbroken iPhones, the only way to 100% protect oneself from trojans, even for the expert user, is to restrict apps to those acquired from the App store. Which totally nullifies the whole point of jailbreaking.
So yes, a jailbroken iPhone is inherently less secure than a "locked-down" device. And there's nothing the end user can do about it, even if they change the SSH password as they should.
i do not mind ethical uses of JB'ing, but to many kids out there want to JB so they can get free apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot
Au contraire! You are mistaken - any app can be used and the code signing broken to STEAL a copy of that app. As I mentioned in a previous post all you need is access to the app itself via a friend that haas purchased or stolen it or BitTorrent. The simple process to overcome the code signing is well documented on the internet by those that are interested in such exploits.
Code signing serves multiple purposes of which DRM is just one. The other is that it is supposed to provide you with a digital certificate that indicates it has not been hacked or patched so that viruses and malicious code does not begin to move about our devices
All of OS X is signed which is an assurance that you are running unmodified code. I for one like that - a lot!
not that I jb, but there are some cool apps, ie, in this forum you want to scroll to the bottom, triple tap and you get this box that you can drag your finger uo or down or sideways when in app pages at lighting speed, then some dl flash player or my personal favorite BiteSMS where you hit the voile up button and you can text while any app is open. Also keep all apps open like free Tom Tom. I'm from the belief that if you like something, you should buy it, again, there are a lot of apps Apple turned away, Googe Voice, that really rock and many stated the ipad woud be hacked. I bet in of the first hacks will be torrents and laying any codec for movies. Be cool.
To say jail breaking equals stealing because of the potential access to pirated App store apps, is to say that signing up for internet service is stealing because of the access to torrent sites.
It's pure bull, and it needs to stop in this thread.
I read through the posts, this article may interest the topic at hand
Quote:
Wozniak contemplated a nearly spiritual relationship between man and his machine. He held, simply, that machines should be open to their owners and that all power should reside in the user. That notion mattered most to geeks, but it expressed deeper ideas, too: a distrust of centralized power and a belief, embedded in silicon, that computers should be tools of freedom.
In 2006, when Wozniak gave his talk at Columbia, I asked him what happened with the Mac. You could open up the Apple II, and there were slots and so on, and anyone could write for it, I said. The Mac was way more closed. What happened?
"Oh," said Wozniak. "That was Steve. He wanted it that way."
Comments
EULA only "binds" an end user with which you have a contractual relationship. Not a competitor. You need to look to copyright/patent law to deal with that.
Just proves that you have no idea about what you are talking about.
Where did I say that an EULA applies to competitors? As has become standard for you, you make things up that have no bearing on reality.
The EULA applies to anyone who buys the product. Whether they're a competitor or a 'normal' customer is irrelevant.
Ok, first of all, telling someone they like to follow rules is a personal attack? It's just a type of person. I personally found the suckups in school to be arrogant, annoying, and repulsive, but it's still not a "personal attack" to assume such characteristics in someone. Oh, but wait, it's ok to call all jailbreakers software pirates and thieves right?
So calling me arrogant, annoying, and repulsive is not a personal attack?
Sadly, the rest of your argument was no better.
Sorry, you're not worth the time of day.
That's a pretty confident statement, care to back it up?
Because jailbreaking EXPLOITS preexisting security problems, it doesn't CREATE the security problems. Of course, once you have a jail broken device, a user has full control over it. At that point he or she can be as permissive or stupid as he desires, which may give others access to the device, too. This can be desired or an undesired side effect of thoughtless actions. But neither is a direct side effect of jail breaking, it's at best a consequence of what's possible once the device is jail broken.
The security issue is not if the user has full access to the device (which he could have if Apple would deliver an iPad like a Mac where the user has full admin access), but that the security mechanisms can be bypassed. If Apple shipped the iPad/iPhone/iPod like a Mac with full admin privileges enabled for the legitimate users, then the security could be much better than it is today, and it would keep the bad guys out while letting users own their device.
Right now we must pray for Apple to make insecure devices just so we can get full admin access on a device we bought with our hard earned money and have the ability to truly own what we own. Unfortunately, with the current state of things, that also means bad guys can potentially use the same security holes and get into the devices without our consent and steal our data.
So while I'm against security hole, I hope there will be some until Apple gets enlightened and lets users own their devices. Maybe Woz could try to talk some sense into Steve?
This toaster approach to computing is a hell of a lot different from the thought that led to the Apple II.
Unfortunately, Jobs always wanted to create closed devices (see the original Mac!) Only Jobs' and Apple's misfortunes forced the Mac to become an open platform, now that they are thriving again, the old tendency is back to lock everything up.
Apple went from Hippy company to Disney store. Kind of disgusting to even think of it.
It should also be noted, that EULA's only cover software, not hardware. I might want to buy an iPad to install Linux on it and use it as a control computer for a DIY robot. Can't do with jail-locked devices. Unfortunately, with so many more important things on the plate, it's unlikely that the legislature will fix these issues by mandating certain consumer rights for digital devices.
That's a pretty confident statement, care to back it up?
This is absolutely false. There are known exploits that affect jailbroken iPhones, but not other iPhones. Jailbreaking clearly adds a new security issue.
No, these "known exploits" are bad reporting. Jail breaking allows full access to the device by users. Users are then free to enable networking functionality, such as ssh, etc. IF and ONLY IF the users use jail breaking to enable such functionality (equivalent to turning on "remote login" in Mac OS X' System Preference's Sharing preferences) AND they don't change the default passwords, then these devices become exploitable.
But they don't become exploitable because they are less secure, they become exploitable because the default passwords happen to be publicly known.
User stupidity can make any device insecure. If you have PasswordPlus or SplashID on your iPhone but then a sticky note on the back with the PIN to get at the data these apps store, then that's also not a security problem with the iPhone or these password storage programs, but it's simply a security break down due to a dumb user.
So, no, Jail breaking causes no breakdown in security, it exploits security holes preexisting in the devices to give owners full access to the devices they bought with their hard earned money.
So calling me arrogant, annoying, and repulsive is not a personal attack?
Sadly, the rest of your argument was no better.
Sorry, you're not worth the time of day.
I DIDN'T call you that. If someone doesn't find "rule followers & enforcers" arrogant, annoying, and repulsive, and still calls you a rule follower, that's not a personal attack. Stop trying to twist my words man. It's like if I said I find truck drivers to be dirty fat bastards, then called someone a truck driver when they're driving a truck. The two are separate. I didn't call them a dirty fat bastard, I called them a truck driver.
You're just using this far fetched reason as an excuse to not acknowledge the inarguable points I made.
Ugh, whatever dude. You go ahead and keep telling people what to do with their property
Sorry, you're not worth the time of day.
.....
This toaster approach to computing is a hell of a lot different from the thought that led to the Apple II.
Apple went from Hippy company to Disney store. Kind of disgusting to even think of it.
Ironic, ain't it? This isn't your father's Apple. It is your Big Brother's Apple.
I just tried it on my iPhone.
"You need WiFi to call over Skype. Skype calls over 3G networks are currently not allowed due to contractual restrictions."
That is the error message I get.
you have to use the app 'fring' if you want to use your skype account over 3G. apparently skype is dragging their heels when it comes to releasing a 3G capapble version, despite both AT&T and apple having removed the restrictions.
This is absolutely false. There are known exploits that affect jailbroken iPhones, but not other iPhones. Jailbreaking clearly adds a new security issue.
The only security issue connected to jailbreaking that I've read about occurs only if the user leaves the password for ssh access at its default value. Change it from its factory default setting and you are as secure as anyone else (assuming a nontrivial password is chosen). Incidentally this is probably the number one sin against secure operation in general: leaving a password at factory default value.
The EULA applies to anyone who buys the product. Whether they're a competitor or a 'normal' customer is irrelevant.
...
That is just nonsense though it is not surprising one might reach that conclusion. According to contract law a EULA can masquerade as a contract and people can claim a EULA is a contract but that does not make it so. It will probably always be possible for a plaintiff to find a judge who slept through his course in Contracts but when you go far enough up the food chain the stark failure of EULA's will remain unless there is a rather fundamental change in contract law. Contracts play a crucial role in a lawful society so diluting them with the EULA nonsense is incredibly reckless. Just to summarize wishing EULA's were contracts does not make it so.
That is just nonsense though it is not surprising one might reach that conclusion. According to contract law a EULA can masquerade as a contract and people can claim a EULA is a contract but that does not make it so. It will probably always be possible for a plaintiff to find a judge who slept through his course in Contracts but when you go far enough up the food chain the stark failure of EULA's will remain unless there is a rather fundamental change in contract law. Contracts play a crucial role in a lawful society so diluting them with the EULA nonsense is incredibly reckless. Just to summarize wishing EULA's were contracts does not make it so.
I guess you're another one who never read Alsup's decision.
Note that I didn't say EULA was a contract. That doesn't mean it isn't binding. Read the Apple v Psystar decision before parading your ignorance.
The only security issue connected to jailbreaking that I've read about occurs only if the user leaves the password for ssh access at its default value. Change it from its factory default setting and you are as secure as anyone else (assuming a nontrivial password is chosen). Incidentally this is probably the number one sin against secure operation in general: leaving a password at factory default value.
So far, that's correct: the SSH exploit is the only one, and it is really just a password issue at heart.
Asa a practical matter, there are no added security issues involved in jailbreaking.
And since, as far as I know, there is no antivirus (yet) for jailbroken iPhones, the only way to 100% protect oneself from trojans, even for the expert user, is to restrict apps to those acquired from the App store. Which totally nullifies the whole point of jailbreaking.
So yes, a jailbroken iPhone is inherently less secure than a "locked-down" device. And there's nothing the end user can do about it, even if they change the SSH password as they should.
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.
Au contraire! You are mistaken - any app can be used and the code signing broken to STEAL a copy of that app. As I mentioned in a previous post all you need is access to the app itself via a friend that haas purchased or stolen it or BitTorrent. The simple process to overcome the code signing is well documented on the internet by those that are interested in such exploits.
Code signing serves multiple purposes of which DRM is just one. The other is that it is supposed to provide you with a digital certificate that indicates it has not been hacked or patched so that viruses and malicious code does not begin to move about our devices
All of OS X is signed which is an assurance that you are running unmodified code. I for one like that - a lot!
not that I jb, but there are some cool apps, ie, in this forum you want to scroll to the bottom, triple tap and you get this box that you can drag your finger uo or down or sideways when in app pages at lighting speed, then some dl flash player or my personal favorite BiteSMS where you hit the voile up button and you can text while any app is open. Also keep all apps open like free Tom Tom. I'm from the belief that if you like something, you should buy it, again, there are a lot of apps Apple turned away, Googe Voice, that really rock and many stated the ipad woud be hacked. I bet in of the first hacks will be torrents and laying any codec for movies. Be cool.
It's pure bull, and it needs to stop in this thread.
Wozniak contemplated a nearly spiritual relationship between man and his machine. He held, simply, that machines should be open to their owners and that all power should reside in the user. That notion mattered most to geeks, but it expressed deeper ideas, too: a distrust of centralized power and a belief, embedded in silicon, that computers should be tools of freedom.
In 2006, when Wozniak gave his talk at Columbia, I asked him what happened with the Mac. You could open up the Apple II, and there were slots and so on, and anyone could write for it, I said. The Mac was way more closed. What happened?
"Oh," said Wozniak. "That was Steve. He wanted it that way."
http://www.slate.com/id/2249872/pagenum/all