Implying he's somehow leaking all these exploits or that he personally would have been able to prevent them?
Preventing these weird little things is hard with any complex software.
its the big bugs like the wifi ones that Scott should have avoided instead of spending time on his moving shadow tricks. those flaws are more likely what got him the boot
I would imagine Samsung is paying people to make and distribute these findings. It doesn't matter how obscure the exploit is or how few users it might affect, the only message that is likely to filter through to nromal news channels is that iphone security can be bypassed.
The average user is still likely to disclose more personal information to a broader audience by installing a single android application.
What about Samsing's OWN lock-screen flaws... they sound much worse!
I wasn't going to say anything but the bigger story is that Voice Control understood what he was saying.
Siri is almost certainly an improvement in speech recognition.
I wonder if Apple is mining the rich dataset from Siri to improve their speech recognition.
I believe Apple has to prepare for the possibility (inevitability?) of a future where many appliances have a conversational interface with context awareness.
It's almost impressive how some people have the perseverance to figure out such hacks. Wish they would apply their drive and skills to something that would benefit society.
To be fair, who actually uses Voice Control anyway?
I use it for a few giggles when an unintended click-hold happens to bring it up, reminding me that it exists. I quickly lose interest because its recognition is poor and there's little I can get from it. I'm kinda bugged that Apple didn't enable it on iPhone 4.
Preventing these weird little things is hard with any complex software.
And that's the special pleading meme that the industry uses to get away with zero accountability in software. Stop furthering it because it's not true.
It's actually not so hard, if you engineer the software with modularity AND accountability in mind, from the ground up, testing the hell out of its most basic functionality, getting it solid before adding on top, and making sure the addition of features cannot cause unwanted side effects by way of securing layers from each other (a process Microsoft failed at spectacularly with Explorer.exe addons and the registry itself). These practices aren't new but they've only recently started getting any attention in consumer products.
The market pushers don't like to spend time on that kind of process. It's just features features features! Sell sell sell!! This is where "complexity" really comes from; rushing to market new features intended only to get a new batch of sales. It's not fundamental to the product; it's fundamental to the execution of it.
Occasionally a new sales pitch comes from an actually useful or actually entertaining new feature idea. Sadly, we find those few desirable changes come at cost and with countless features and flaws we didn't ask for. Consumers do not drive the market. The market drives the market.
And that's the special pleading meme that the industry uses to get away with zero accountability in software. Stop furthering it because it's not true.
It's actually not so hard, if you engineer the software with modularity AND accountability in mind, from the ground up, testing the hell out of its most basic functionality, getting it solid before adding on top, and making sure the addition of features cannot cause unwanted side effects by way of securing layers from each other (a process Microsoft failed at spectacularly with Explorer.exe addons and the registry itself). These practices aren't new but they've only recently started getting any attention in consumer products.
The market pushers don't like to spend time on that kind of process. It's just features features features! Sell sell sell!! This is where "complexity" really comes from; rushing to market new features intended only to get a new batch of sales. It's not fundamental to the product; it's fundamental to the execution of it.
Occasionally a new sales pitch comes from an actually useful or actually entertaining new feature idea. Sadly, we find those few desirable changes come at cost and with countless features and flaws we didn't ask for. Consumers do not drive the market. The market drives the market.
Please expand on this. This claim seems spurious at best.
Go into settings, general, passcode lock. Turn off Siri at lock screen, & if you're wise probably Passbook & Reply with Message as well. Boom, problem solved. Why any of this is considered news worthy is beyond me, just a huge waste of everyone's time.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Implying he's somehow leaking all these exploits or that he personally would have been able to prevent them?
Preventing these weird little things is hard with any complex software.
its the big bugs like the wifi ones that Scott should have avoided instead of spending time on his moving shadow tricks. those flaws are more likely what got him the boot
It will help strengthen iPhone security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks
I would imagine Samsung is paying people to make and distribute these findings. It doesn't matter how obscure the exploit is or how few users it might affect, the only message that is likely to filter through to nromal news channels is that iphone security can be bypassed.
The average user is still likely to disclose more personal information to a broader audience by installing a single android application.
What about Samsing's OWN lock-screen flaws... they sound much worse!
http://shkspr.mobi/blog/2013/03/new-bypass-samsung-lockscreen-total-control/
This one of a number of flaws ADDED to Android by Samsung:
http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/vulnerabilities-continue-weigh-down-samsung-android-phones-032013
Having hardware and software come from different companies with entirely different interests and business models is no picnic!
Siri is almost certainly an improvement in speech recognition.
I wonder if Apple is mining the rich dataset from Siri to improve their speech recognition.
I believe Apple has to prepare for the possibility (inevitability?) of a future where many appliances have a conversational interface with context awareness.
Me got Siri.
Me not got problem with exploit.
I use it for a few giggles when an unintended click-hold happens to bring it up, reminding me that it exists. I quickly lose interest because its recognition is poor and there's little I can get from it. I'm kinda bugged that Apple didn't enable it on iPhone 4.
And that's the special pleading meme that the industry uses to get away with zero accountability in software. Stop furthering it because it's not true.
It's actually not so hard, if you engineer the software with modularity AND accountability in mind, from the ground up, testing the hell out of its most basic functionality, getting it solid before adding on top, and making sure the addition of features cannot cause unwanted side effects by way of securing layers from each other (a process Microsoft failed at spectacularly with Explorer.exe addons and the registry itself). These practices aren't new but they've only recently started getting any attention in consumer products.
The market pushers don't like to spend time on that kind of process. It's just features features features! Sell sell sell!! This is where "complexity" really comes from; rushing to market new features intended only to get a new batch of sales. It's not fundamental to the product; it's fundamental to the execution of it.
Occasionally a new sales pitch comes from an actually useful or actually entertaining new feature idea. Sadly, we find those few desirable changes come at cost and with countless features and flaws we didn't ask for. Consumers do not drive the market. The market drives the market.
Please expand on this. This claim seems spurious at best.