RSSIPhone feature could enable Apple to kill apps remotely
By Ed Oswald | Published August 8, 2008, 11:07 AM
11:10 am EDT August 8, 2008 - Another technical writer has disagreed with author Jonathan Zdziarski's and the media's initial suppositions about the whether the list he discovered on his 3G iPhone truly is a blacklist-in-waiting.
John Gruber of Daring Fireball points out that its a Core Location blacklist, and that the "clbl" in the called URL stands for exactly that. Applications who use that portion of the iPhone code must follow some very strict rules for privacy reasons.
Core Location handles the iPhone's built-in GPS functionality. Applications can use this to become location-aware, and there would be obvious reasons why Apple may object to use the built-in GPS, especially if it is used improperly. "There may well be some sort of kill switch that Apple can deploy to remotely disable an app that's already installed. But this list is not it," Gruber wrote.
11:49 am EDT August 7, 2008 - A developer has discovered code within the iPhone 2.0.x firmware that appears to allow Apple to blacklist apps, which could result in their removal from the iPhone without user interaction.
Developer and iPhone book author Jonathan Zdziarski revealed via iPhone Atlas methods by which Apple still maintains tight control over what is on the iPhone. The code lies in the CoreLocation portion of the software, and points to a URL, https://iphone-services.apple.com/clbl/unauthorizedApps, which appears to contain a blacklist.
Going to that address triggers the loading of code that lists apps by name, the date of entry into the list, and a description. Only one entry appears there now, though it could be some type of placeholder.
"This suggests that the iPhone calls home once in a while to find out what applications it should turn off. At the moment, no apps have been blacklisted, but by all appearances, this has been added to disable applications that the user has already downloaded and paid for, if Apple so chooses to shut them down," Zdziarski said.
Assuming Zdziarski's theory is correct, just how often the iPhone calls back to Apple to check this list is unknown. However, such a feature would expand upon another iPhone capability to prevent application execution through certificate revocation.
There, Apple can revoke the certificate in order to prevent the application from executing. Other mobile operating systems include such functionality as well, including Symbian and the BlackBerry OS. "Jailbroken" iPhones bypass this requirement, enabling the execution of applications not approved through Apple's own process.
While Apple defends its right to do so for security reasons, no doubt, such a practice rubs some the wrong way.
But at least one person says that the positives outweigh the negatives. "Is this something to be outraged about? Yes, it's creepy that iPhone can phone home and deactivate your apps, but the risk-reward is clearly in Apple's favor," Larry Dignan writes for ZDNet this morning.
Dignan points out that while the deletion of apps may annoy customers, on the upside, Apple gains some credibility in the enterprise sector for its remote wiping, it has some control over security, and it also has more control over its reputation -- something the company protects vigorously.
So far, Apple has used neither the certificate revocation nor this alleged blacklist for any application. While it has removed items from the App Store's catalog, those items continue to operate on phones on which they're already installed.
C'mon people, stop complaining, we all know Apple does what Apple wants, and no one can stop them. So if you buy a Apple product, just shut up bent over and take like a gay man. LOL
Score: 0
|Heh...
That kind of talk is going to start offending people.
I may not agree with them, but...
Good for you!
More folks need to realize that it's not one of their inherent rights to "be not offended."
It's one of the few things I actually greatly admired about George Carlin. Didn't care who he offended, always tried to make sure he offended *someone*.
Score: 0
|More folks need to realize that it's not one of their inherent rights to "be not offended."
Couldn't agree more!
Score: 0
|example: internetwolrd7 he took it all the way and enjoyed it =] porque a el le gusta la pinga y tambien porque es un maricon chupa pinga(no i am not translating that, if you wanna know what i just said just translate it by yourself.... sorry =])
Score: 0
|I'm having Microsoft nightmare flashbacks and Apple screaming bloody murder. Oh wait it's Apple doing it this time.
Score: 0
|How much more proof do you need for all those mac fools to understand how evil Jobs empire is !!
Score: 0
|apparently they're still blind to see the truth unless they are all hippies =]
Score: 0
|They should just throw in an additional clause to the EULA that allows users the *choice* of whether or not to allow blacklisted apps. If they choose to allow blacklisted apps, then the user faces the fact that they may have to have their phone flashed back to default to get support...that's the way most places work anyway...
I love my iPhone, but I'm not exactly comfortable with this idea. I understand it for Enterprise support/business use. However, my iPhone is for personal use, and it should be my *choice* as to how I want to use it.
Seriously, individuals should have some ownership/responsibility when it comes to the device. If I choose to install potentially harmful apps, it should be my problem to fix it, not the Vendor's.
Score: 0
|The back door they left open to disable these apps are the cracks that develop in the case. They can simply get in through there and change whatever they want.
Score: 0
|Boy I love these articles that put the Apple fanboys on the defensive. Most of them still haven't figured that the effects of a company's actions are directly proportional to that company's size and their market share in the particular area in which the action has taken place. While a smaller company might be able to get away with the same thing, if a much bigger one, say Microsoft, tried to pull the same thing, they would be crucified. So why should we believe/assume that this is only there for our own protection and Apple will never use it for anything Evil(tm)?
For some reason, this whole article reminds of the time back when iMacs had something like a 1-2% market share and Apple + zealots kept touting the operating system as invincible/impregnable/unbreakable. They wouldn't shut their pie holes about their OS not having any exploits/malware/etc. That was because iMacs were irrelevant and nobody cared. Now that iMacs gained popularity (mainly due to the PC Guy vs. Mac Guy false advertising BS) it turns out their OS has more holes than a giant curd of Swiss cheese.
Score: 0
|Sorry kashin but this Apple fanboy can't possibly see why we would need to be on the defensive?
Apple having a kill switch on rogue and bad apps is a GOOD thing. Simple. End of discussion.
Score: 0
|Why anyone would pay for what amounts to a license to use Apple's iPhone but still owned by Apple, similar to purchasing a license to run Windows, is beyond me. The iPhone is the biggest scam since snake oil.
Score: 0
|Bad apps? Why should I let Apple decide what constitutes a "bad app"? That should be a decision made by an informed user. You do realize that this means they know everything that is on every Iphone. That also means that anyone with any kind of file that is considered questionable is subject to deletion. Regardless of what it may be. Do you really want Apple making that choice for you?
Score: 0
|The fact that you said "we" when referring to Apple f**s makes you one pathetic loser internetworld7. The Blu-Ray girls do the same thing. You need to get a life.
Score: -1
|I dont know about you, but I would like to decide for myself what I want to do and what programs to run on a devide that I have bought.
(Not that I will buy the iphone after reading this....)
Score: 0
|All I gotta say about this is that if MS by any chance did anything remotely to this they would be sued back to the stoneage by angry customers. Apple, however, has their fans defending this. One word: appalling.
Score: 0
|The iPhone is quickly becoming increasinly popular. As such, it will certainly be targeted by viruses, especially with a lot of its internal workings being studied and shared on the Internet as a result of the efforts to unlock and/or jailbreak it. Now imagine having to run an anti-virus in such an environment. I believe this is a nice way to try to prevent malicious code from being run. Can it be used against users? Sure. But, needless to say, Apple has other ways of doing that. If Apple is not alone in such practice, with Blackberry and Symbian doing the very same thing, why is Apple alone being singled out as "the evil corporation"? There's no such thing as evil corporations. People here get too passionate about corporations as if they were some sort of religion. As businesses, corporations sometimes do good things, and sometimes do bad things. That's why we (should) have governmental institutions to cover the consumer's back.
Score: 0
|Why is Apple so worried about a virus infecting my phone? If I truly owned the iPhone, wouldn't that be my responsibility? Isn't it my responsibility to keep viruses off my computer? No one really owns their iPhone. It is simply a 2 year lease from Apple.
Score: 0
|So, I guess someone could hack that site and place all of the iPhone apps in the blacklist?
Score: 0
|this function is like a two edge sword. one edge can protect the user for security reason and another edge can hurt the user if not used properly.
While reading this article, I realize Apple's practice sounds awefully like what communist country does to its people, and what communism is all about. living under communist country, its citizens lets the gov't tell them what to do, where to work and what to wear in return for stability and security. anyone that has potential to discrupt the quality of life of other people will be blacklisted and eliminated.
Score: 0
|... and how is that a double-edged sword?
Score: 0
|If the government is corrupt... take your time...
Score: 0
|Assume in a closed system such as apple's that there are thousands of little things they can do that breach anyone's idea of privacy.
Score: 0
|More whiners and noobs getting there panties in a twist OVER NOTHING.
"Other mobile operating systems include such functionality as well, including Symbian and the BlackBerry OS."
you know how to hack the iPhone dont you? HAHAHAHAHA
****ing noobs.
Score: 0
|Love it.
Justification for this from the same guy who has in the paste blasted MSFT numerous times for what amounts to less.
Ain't you just the cutest little troll?
Score: 0
|You should know......
Score: 0
|Score: 0
|Yeah, because I blast apple for the things I praise MSFT for, right?
*laughing*
You couldn't be more father from the truth. ;)
Score: 0
|EXACTLY.
immo of an immo
Score: 0
|Not to feed the troll or anything, but I just realized you are Gcoder.
He's the only other person I have *ever* seen use that particular incoherent babble-speak, and just happens to be a BN user.
...and a troll....capable of posting only in short bursts of incoherent vulgarity...
Just like you.
Have you actually ever posted anything factual, relevant, topical, informational, sourced, cited, or useful? (That was rhetorical, we all know the answer to that is a resounding, "No.")
Score: 0
|Plain and simple. If you didn't buy the app at the Apple Store, it will be zapped! Pure greed!
Score: 0
|No it's not greed at all. Apple is NOT a greedy company.
This is just a minor little thing to protect the Apple user experience.
*sarcasm*
Score: 0
|*laughs*
This is just a minor little thing to protect the Apple user experience.
I suppose, in some twisted way, this could actually be true. Locking down the experience means they have 100% control of it and allows them to maintain something of the "it just works" mentality.
Of course, people are quickly getting sick of the amount of control needed to keep such a facade going.
Score: 0
|Apple wants control over everything. People complain about Microsoft. You can't get a legal Mac clone, the Iphone you have to buy the AT&T data plan, plus since the Iphone came out AT&T now charges an arm and a lag for their other smart phone data plans too. You'll never see other companies using the Iphone OS on 3rd party phones. You can only buy songs for your Ipod from Itunes. Every time Apple comes out with something you have no choices, you have to do things their way or not at all.
Its good that Apple doesn't make cars. "The new Apple Icar uses a special type of gas that costs $10 a gallon, no other car manufacturer can make a car that uses this gas".
Score: 0
|To be fair, this sort of closed system allows them to tailor the experience and greatly limits support issues in the long run (initial woes of MobileMe notwithstanding).
Score: 0
|Reminds me more of Communism then some nice feature
Score: 0
|It reminds you of an economic system? Do you even know what communism is?
Score: 0
|Yeah, that's the ticket...
Score: 0
|Maybe you missed the part about control.
Score: 0
|That's BS. I buy songs for my iPod at amazon all the time.
Score: 0
|This would be smart if this is to protect users from software that would disable or damage functionality of the Iphone.
Score: 0
|You are right there.
But aren't apps supposed to be certified by Apple before they go on sale at the apps store?
This functionality is probably foisted upon Apple by AT&T. If AT&T feels an app uses too much bandwidth they can pull it.
Score: 0
|My guess is it will download the list once the iPhone has been synced with iTunes. It this point it is all speculation, however if they would disable an app remotely they would also have to give an refund.
Cheap iPhones & iPods at http://www.iphonevortex.com
Score: 0
|This is completely consistent with Apple's practices. Steve Jobs wants complete control.
It seems like most Apple users are falling all over themselves to give up that control and freedom as fast as possible.
I can't wait to see all the Apple apologist's rationalizations for this abominable behavior.
Score: 0
|Are you kidding?
No apology needed. Steve Jobs Knows Best. Apple users should be thankful he's deigned to protect them from apps *He* Himself wouldn't use.
Those who criticize this are simply unable or unwilling to grasp such a simple truth.
Note: This post is purely to beat internetworld7 to the punch. How'd I do, little buddy?
Score: 0
|Let's see how many comments this article will gather over the next 24 hours.
Score: 0
|lmao all you "M$" haters. Suck it.
Suck it long, and suck it hard.
Ya'll b**** and whine about how "M$" is riddled with DRM and backdoors and that we should all come over to the Mac.
Take your Apple iTunes DRM ... and your iPhone spyware ... and your MobileMe disaster ... and the auto-install BS ... and your asinine EULAs and suck it!
Note to self: Caffeine and SNL Celebrity Jeopadry and No Sleep do. not. mix.
Score: 0
|Many Apple fans are so loyal to Apple, no matter how many times Apple abuses them, they'd still love Apple. "M$" fans should be ashamed of themselves for not having even half that kind of unquestioning loyalty.
Score: 0
|Unquestioning loyalty is a sign of stupidity and ones inability to make logical, thoughtful decisions. Your typical fanboy falls into this category quite nicely. Apple, MSFT, or otherwise.
Allowing *any* company to abuse you is the epitome of "dumb".
Use what works for you, don't listen to the trolls and fanboys (but feel free to play with them as time and entertainment value allows).
Score: 0
|Sorry. I should have put the sarcasm sign there. :)
Score: 0
|We need an "internetworld7" tag for our sarcastic Apple posts.
Score: 0
|Where's your patriotism? [smiles]
Score: 0
|I'll take "The Rapists" for 100. :)
Score: 0
|Same place my loyalty belongs. Where I've thoughtfully and consciously decided to put it.
Score: 0
|That's Therapists, and there *is* no $100 amount. Why don't we choose "Months that begin with "Feb"" for $400.
Score: 0
|I know I shouldn't ask! But hey, let's see if curiosity really does kill the cat.
And where did you thoughtfully and consciously decided to put it???
Score: 0
|i agree
Score: 0
|My patriotism?
Sheesh...You new here?
Good ol' US of A, my friend. My brother comes home from Iraq in 2 weeks. Can't wait to see him again. It's going to be one *hell* of a party.
Score: 0
|Ok, it's a URL... On the face of it looks like kid's play for a jailbreak tool to easily manipulate the hosts file. And if you don't use jailbreak it seems unlikely you have unauthorized apps on the phone in any case...
Score: 0
|I can see this being useful on iPhones used for Corporate reasons, but i still think this should be maintained by the corporation, NOT apple.
On the security side it can be useful if there a programs found to be virus laden or very poorly programed. But i still see this being used for the wrong reasons: restriction (which apple is sadly famous for) and money.
Restricting or taking away what a user voluntarily puts on their phone, especially if paid for, is not consumer friendly.
It's already bad enough that phone manufacturers block users from adding their own custom ringtones just so they can make money off ringtone sales, which is such a rip-off.
Score: 0
|Whoa Apple... This is way too far. Please do not use the blacklist and disable apps remotely.
Score: 0
|This is not what it reads, IPhone apps can use the location services to detect where you are. This is the core location framework. Some 3rd party apps could use this information and track your location without you knowing.
Apple can prevent such apps from using this framework, not KILL THEM or other APPS.
Read :
http://daringfireball.ne...core_location_blacklist
PS
I am not fan boy off anything, I just like technology off any sort.
Score: 0
|