Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Businesses Cellphones Apple

iPhone Dev Team to Open Source Free Unlock 80

Posted by Zonk from the free-as-in-iphone-is-a-little-odd-to-say dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In an effort to keep up with changes from Apple at a faster speed, the iPhone Dev Team is considering open sourcing AnySIM, the free unlocking solution for the iPhone. In a chat with Gizmodo, iPhone Dev Team member Sam said that this move could 'open a lot of possibilities for the future,' mainly in terms of the speed of the updates and avoiding sloppy and possibly dangerous binary patches. They are now looking for community input to get the project started."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iPhone Dev Team to Open Source Free Unlock More

iPhone Dev Team to Open Source Free Unlock

Comments Filter:

  • Of course, then Apple will have access, too (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Which should help them in breaking any workarounds used, until a true valid unlock is achieved.
    • Apple is well aware of how the current unlocks are being accomplished, this changes nothing on that end. It does make it much faster to RESPOND to Apples re-locking attempts though.

  • How is this going to work? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Trintech ( 1137007 ) on Saturday December 01, 2007 @02:40PM (#21546037)
    I could be completely wrong about this but I though that the unlocking programs utilized exploits, buffer overruns, etc to unlock the iPhone. If thats the case, how is releasing the source going to help this project? Won't Apple just read the code and release updates keeping the program from working?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 4D6963 ( 933028 )

      Won't Apple just read the code and release updates keeping the program from working?

      Yeah, because until now Apple had no idea at all how that anySIM thing worked. Now that they'll be able to access the source, they'll like instantly know how to prevent the hack from working.

      You see that's as if makers of cutting pliers published the plans of their products, then car makers would as soon know how to prevent thieves from cutting the wires of a car in order to steal it.

    • Re:How is this going to work? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thePowerOfGrayskull ( 905905 ) <marc,paradise&gmail,com> on Saturday December 01, 2007 @02:59PM (#21546193) Homepage Journal
      Quite possibly. Puts us OSS fans in a quandary, doesn't it? On the one hand, proprietary software is Teh Ebil. On the other hand, keeping this proprietary allows to keep a platform pseudo-open. It's really no choice at all though - either you believe in the principles FOSS or you don't. If so, then this should be released. If not, it should not. If you find yourself on the fence, perhaps you're not as firm an OSS believer as you liked to think. (Note: 'you' here is in the plural sense, not directed at parent who didn't express an opinion one way or the other...)

      • It's really no choice at all though - either you believe in the principles FOSS or you don't.

        What does this statement, and the statement by President Bush that "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists", have in common?

        Both are an example of a false dichotomy/false dilemma. [wikipedia.org]

        There is a third way: it's called "being reasonable", or "having nuance", or "creating exceptions where it's pragmatic to do so". Open source works and/or is desirable for many projects and situations - but not all.

        • If you truly believe in the underlying principles behind OSS - that is, that information cannot be 'owned' by any one individual or group - this is no false dichotomy. If not, then my post wasn't directed at you. I thought I made that clear in original context, but I can see how it may not have been.
          • I actually think OSS works pretty well as a development model and more-broadly as a cultural advancement in the way information is communicated and evolved. I just don't take it as religion, that's all. :-)
    • If Apple really wanted the unlocking to stop, I don't think they would have to look at the source code. I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but they could either:

      a) Take legal action.

      or

      b) Decompile the unlocker, and figure out how it works that way.

      Note: I don't know a lot about law, or decompiling programs for that matter. :)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xformer ( 595973 )
        What legal action? More specifically, what legal action in their own country?

        Phone unlocking is legal in many places in the US, if not all over, and the DMCA recently had an exception added to it so that circumventing phone locks to unlock them isn't a violation of that law. I'm curious, then, just what they could use to make a case.

        I guess that just leaves them with one option.

    • Re:How is this going to work? (Score:5, Informative)

      by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Saturday December 01, 2007 @03:10PM (#21546303) Homepage
      Some of the exploits have been public for ages and Apple knows that these are the exploits used. It still does not fix the underlying buggy code for some reason. They are not the only ones as PSP and other small devices have a similar history of not caring about security fixes. On a second thought I am not surprised. People in corporate environments tend to check in an open source lib in the local repository once (often as a binary) and they are not bothered to follow it for ages after that. Following external components and updating them for stability and security is the exemption, not the norm.
      • I think that's wrong.

        I offered to assist a friend open his iPhone to another carrier (here in Canada, where we can't get AT&T if we wanted to).

        His uses the latest ROM, 1.1.2, and they've upgraded the bootloader in this version to close the hole that was in the previous versions. There is currently no software crack for this phone, although hopefully someone will figure something out. (TurboSIM, a sim interceptor card, which makes the iPhone think it's talking to AT&T, when in fact it's not, is app

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ardiri ( 245358 )
      I could be completely wrong

      yes, you are wrong. AnySim is an iphone application - not a hack. the device must first be hacked (jailbroken); in order to install applications onto the phone. once done, AnySim simply updates the baseband firmware. the jailbreak process uses the exploits; not AnySim.
    • Fastcompany.com had a really good video of various exploits on the iphone.

  • The Drawbacks? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Saturday December 01, 2007 @02:42PM (#21546045) Journal
    Wouldn't this make it easier for Apple to break AnySim?

    • Re:The Drawbacks? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by larry bagina ( 561269 ) on Saturday December 01, 2007 @02:45PM (#21546071) Journal
      break it? You mean fix buffer overflows and other vulnerabilities? That would be a good thing.
    • A well-organized project centered around the unlock software, with a large community base, might help persuade Apple that their heart (read: business interests) wouldn't be in the right place if they continued to resist such trends.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by DECS ( 891519 )
        How persuasive would that be? It sounds like saying the popularity of DVD rip software "will eventually win over the labels to embrace the idea of piracy."

        Are you suggesting that some profitable new market will emerge from FOSS users that will convince Apple to change its sales strategy to target "people who don't want to pay for things" as opposed to "people to pay a premium for higher end products"?

        Without a service subsidy (and it is a subsidy, even if AT&T is paying Apple rather than the customer),
        • Are you suggesting that some profitable new market will emerge from FOSS users that will convince Apple to change its sales strategy to target "people who don't want to pay for things" as opposed to "people to pay a premium for higher end products"?

          No, I'm suggesting that Apple might change its sales strategy to support people who don't mind paying for things (i.e. buying the iPhone in the first place) but want a choice in telco carriers.

          Without a service subsidy (and it is a subsidy, even if AT&

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DECS ( 891519 )
            You're talking about freedom from a hardware manufacturer tying its phone to a provider. The solution you offer is to return to service providers dictating the features of phones. If you're really interested in freedom and choice, you should reevaluate your position.

            Apple charges you $399 + it gets whatever it extorts directly from AT&T. AT&T charges you $1000 per year (you can now opt out of the data plan, so it's more like $600/year). Other service providers charge the same thing or more for a sma
            • Given the material you've just presented, I concede that I need to educate myself more on the topic before I discuss it further. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction!

        • but there are no $399 touch screen wireless computers that can be manufactured new at a profit.

          Isn't that about the standard price for a windows mobile based PDA with wireless and a good screen?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DECS ( 891519 )
            No. The "Windows Mobile Smartphone" typically has no touch screen (Motorola Q, Samsung Blackjack) and has ~128 MB RAM, not 8GB. An 8 GB SD card costs $200 itself. They also offer a 1/4 resolution screen. Add in service (to flush out the hidden subsidy) and those phones cost $400 more over two years than the iPhone.

            Ten Fake Apple Scandals: 1 - Phony Rage About iPhone Price and Profits [roughlydrafted.com]
            • An 8 GiB SD card may cost $200, but an 8 GiB USB drive costs about a quarter of that. 8 GiB SD cards are at the cutting edge of flash density and are priced to match, you just don't need that density in a device the size of an iPhone, you can use lower density, cheaper flash.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by DECS ( 891519 )
                That may be true, but it's irrelevant. An 8 GB SD Flash card is the only way a user can expand the capacity of Windows Mobile phones that ship with 128 MB. So a $399 WM smartphone needs that expensive SD flash to match the 8GB iPhone. Sure, a manufacturer could source 8GB of Flash for cheaper than $200, but problem is that none actually are doing that. Users can't solder in Flash RAM chips themselves.

                In any event, adding 8GB of RAM would significantly increase the cost of mobiles. Adding a large touch scree
                • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • 8GiB SDHC for $51 [newegg.com]. The prices are coming down fast!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Nullav ( 1053766 )

          Are you suggesting that some profitable new market will emerge from FOSS users that will convince Apple to change its sales strategy to target "people who don't want to pay for things" as opposed to "people to pay a premium for higher end products"?

          It's not the desire to get out of paying. Far be it, most carriers I've been with have thrown a huge bill my way for canceling mid-contract. It's just that AT&T sucks.

          Which $399 phones have 8GB of RAM and a large touch screen?

          Flash isn't RAM and I seriously d

  • Not safer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Saturday December 01, 2007 @02:54PM (#21546149)

    this move could 'open a lot of possibilities for the future,' mainly in terms of the speed of the updates and avoiding sloppy and possibly dangerous binary patches.

    Ugh. This is just another version of "open source code is more secure because you can review it and compile it yourself." Open source code can be more secure, because a qualified individual can conduct a lengthy security audit, and maybe catch some malicious or insecure code."

    • virtually nobody that uses the code will be even remotely qualified to even understand how the code works, much less be able to tell if it'll screw up their phone.
    • Opening development to more people makes the chances of someone SUBMITTING (note, I said "submitting", not "successfully getting away with putting malicious code into an official release) go up; now the few people who know what they're doing have to spend a lot of time reviewing code not just for correctness but malicious intent, something they may not be qualified to do.
    • Releasing the source code now makes it exceptionally easy for people to trojan the code and release a compiled version. The bar has been lowered from "knows assembler and iPhone internals" to "is decent with C."

    • Re:Not safer (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Saturday December 01, 2007 @03:09PM (#21546285)
      virtually nobody that uses the code will be even remotely qualified to even understand how the code works, much less be able to tell if it'll screw up their phone.

      All it takes is one person who knows how to read the code to make a rambling blog post detailing the vulnerabilities and submit it to Slashdot.

      Then all the people who didn't know how to read code will now know and the code reader will have his share of adsense for the month.

      But more seriously... When I have doubts about a software package, I just hit it up in Google to see if there has been wide spread complaints or other issues.

      As far as your other issues you bring up, in a closed source scenario what is to prevent a malicious person from just renaming any old trojan that they compiled to be the same exact size as the closed source exe and putting up a torrent of it? Sure it won't work at all as far as running the program, but it will do what they need to do. (Checksums anyone?)

      Even if a person uploads something maliciously into the main package, someone will eventually notice and with more eyes the faster this will happen. Of course this also helps out if the original coder is the one who is malicious.

    • Re:Not safer (Score:4, Interesting)

      by palegray.net ( 1195047 ) <philip.paradis@p ... t ['ale' in gap]> on Saturday December 01, 2007 @03:16PM (#21546333) Homepage Journal
      Thank heavens we have a ton of security firms who make a living finding holes in both open and closed source software and publishing the results. Of course, their work is just a bit easier if the source is available, and it's just slightly easier to write a patch that solves the problem ;). I guess my main point is this: it isn't just the average user who looks at the source code for high-profile projects.

    • I think that the type of people looking to unlock their phones are the type of people who would be interested in seeing how the unlock code works.

    • Releasing the source code now makes it exceptionally easy for people to trojan the code and release a compiled version. The bar has been lowered from "knows assembler and iPhone internals" to "is decent with C."

      The process I went through involved jailbreakme.com & then installing AnySim from the installer.

      To trojan that process, someone would have to hack the 'trusted source' I used or provide instructions that point the user to a trojaned source.

      Why would anyone install anysim from anywhere other than the official anysim website?

    • Much safer (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bit01 ( 644603 ) on Saturday December 01, 2007 @03:56PM (#21546671)

      Enough with the "closed source is inherently superior" propaganda. Whether you like it or not open source for the user is everything that closed source is. Plus the source is available.

      The idea that "closed source" is magical security pixie dust needs to die.

      this move could 'open a lot of possibilities for the future,' mainly in terms of the speed of the updates and avoiding sloppy and possibly dangerous binary patches.

      Ugh. This is just another version of "open source code is more secure because you can review it and compile it yourself."

      No, it hasn't. Try to understand that it's not just you reviewing the code but potentially many other parties apart from the originator. Are you trying to tell us independent third party review is not a good idea?

      Open source code can be more secure

      No, open source is likely to be more secure. Because many independent third parties can review it. Not just a vendor who has a commercial, ego or "not-enough-manhours" incentive to hide mistakes.

      , because a qualified individual can conduct a lengthy security audit,

      No, because many different individuals with many different levels of expertise can conduct all sorts of audits, security and otherwise, and in addition use the code in ways the the original author[s] never even envisaged.

      and maybe catch some malicious or insecure code."

      Better than no chance at all.

      * virtually nobody that uses the code will be even remotely qualified to even understand how the code works, much less be able to tell if it'll screw up their phone.

      So, out of a population of billions that leaves a population of thousands, or more, who are more than qualified to look at it. Think the statistics.

      * Opening development to more people makes the chances of someone SUBMITTING (note, I said "submitting", not "successfully getting away with putting malicious code into an official release) go up; now the few people who know what they're doing have to spend a lot of time reviewing code not just for correctness but malicious intent, something they may not be qualified to do.

      Malicious code is a strict subset of incorrect code. You check all your code for correctness, right? If you're not qualified to do that then you're not a programmer.

      * Releasing the source code now makes it exceptionally easy for people to trojan the code and release a compiled version. The bar has been lowered from "knows assembler and iPhone internals" to "is decent with C."

      No, it hasn't. Let me know when you've managed to break code signing and vendor repositories. Every binary package I use was either compiled/signed by the vendor or compiled by myself from vendor signed source code.

      ---

      I want a free and open market. Do you?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by TheSeer2 ( 949925 )
        The idea that "open source" is magical security pixie dust needs to die.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by bit01 ( 644603 )

          The idea that "open source" is magical security pixie dust needs to die.

          I know you're joking but nobody says it is, just that open source gives more options. Independent third party review is important, in everything from politics to crime to code.

          ---

          Keep your options open!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cheapy ( 809643 )
        You're absolutely right. Many third parties can review the code.

        But do they?
    • No shit end users won't. Parties who are trying to figure out ways to unlock the iPhone themselves, will, however. Open Source does allow end users to participate in documentation, translation, sending crash dumps, etc. You're right, end users won't be of much help to this particular open source project. However, other devs and other hackers will be able to help.

  • To what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by noidentity ( 188756 ) on Saturday December 01, 2007 @03:07PM (#21546257)
    I am not understanding title article what

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by egr ( 932620 )
      That's a new method to ensure that slashdotters read at least the summary before posting something irrelevant

  • Open Source (Score:3, Informative)

    by BigZaphod ( 12942 ) on Saturday December 01, 2007 @03:54PM (#21546651) Homepage
    The iPhone dev community is largely open source already and the closed nature of some of the hack projects has always bothered me. I've released all of my code from my iApp-a-day [google.com] project which took place last month, and a lot of people are learning from it and building better things now. I know I'd be interested to see how something like AnySim actually works under the hood. It's one thing to have an academic knowledge of how these things work, but quite another to see and experiment with it first hand.
  • The real motive for opening the source for AnySIM is that the iPhone Dev Team doesn't have the time to work on the project by themselves anymore. The other dev team (iPhone Elite Team) was able to patch the binary so it works with the new firmware (sort of) before any update form the iPhone Dev Team. They are so out of time that they still didn't reverse engineered the basic functions from iTunes that are necessary for the jailbreak process of newer firmwares. These are the functions iTunes uses for resto
  • By "iPhone dev team" do they mean the team at Apple that develops the iphone? why would they get to decide if the tool gets released without input from their corporate overlords? or is it just a bunch of people in their mom's basement who have nothing to do with apple that like to call themselves 'the iphone dev team'? in that case, why wasn't this open source in the first place? who runs a binary that can probably brick your iphone without having the source?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sancho ( 17056 )
      That was my thought.

      If I saw a headline which read, "Windows Dev Team to foo" I would assume that it was someone associated with Microsoft.
    • "who runs a binary that can probably brick your iphone without having the source?" oh, i don't know, just about every single person out there with a free'd up iPhone.
  • yeah, let's show apple how we're cracking their phone. 'cause that's a good idea. sure, open sourcing it would mean that it would be developed faster assuming that apple don't see it. unfortunately that won't be the case.
  • Here in Canada, Apple has not released the iPhone yet. Rumors last month said that Rogers will announce it before Christmas.

    However, you see some people here who use iPhone.

    Even in places as far away as Qatar, the iPhone is widely used there.

    Since all the sets had to come from USA (or recently from Germany and UK), they have to be unlocked in order to work with the "normal" GSM carriers. Which means it is a widely used practice.

    Perhaps Apple's dev team are just bowing to the inevitable. But how does that fa
  • is awfully self-aggrandizing on their part?

    The iPhone Dev Team is at Apple. These people are, at best, the iPhone Hack Team.

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close