Comments on: Wired’s David Kravets assails Apple over the EFF’s DMCA iPhone case

By: What A Baseband Processor Is « David Chin Online

What A Baseband Processor Is « David Chin Online — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:09:50 +0000

[...] Daniel Eran Dilger: Smartphones are essentially a general purpose computer (usually an ARM-based CPU) connected to a cellular radio (controlled by the baseband processor) via an interface that uses basic AT-style commands to place calls and transmit data, much like an old Hayes modem if you are old enough to remember that sort of thing. Vendors are free to do pretty much anything on the computer side of the device, just as anyone can release a Linux PC. On the baseband side however, the phone can’t be “open,” by law. ← Older Posts | [...]

By: The Mad Hatter

The Mad Hatter — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:09:08 +0000

stepmuel,

But you can’t change this kind of things because there are too many gadgets out there who “need those bugs” to carry on working.

Why not? Atari did. Apple did. Commodore did. Microsoft did.

By: stepmuel

stepmuel — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:56:41 +0000

@The Mad Hatter:

If one can modify the baseband processor, the network _is_ compromised. It’s like being able to cut or modify the wires in a ethernet cable and insert some extra voltage. Or maybe simpler to understand: manipulating traffic lights by bringing your own battery. Except the wires are not hidden in the ground but everywhere. Thats why radio frequencies are regulated.

Even a properly designed radio system is prone to jamming. The GSM Network is even worse: Its security relies mainly on the complexity of the specifications. (I heard of some guys who presented a self made mobile antenna at a german hacker congress. They could make all sort of nasty stuff, like posing as an official provider and catching calls.) I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole 3G Stuff works that Way, too.

But you can’t change this kind of things because there are too many gadgets out there who “need those bugs” to carry on working. If someone had spent some more time and money into the specifications, the situation could be better now. But thats one drawback of the free market economy: nearsightedness: It works, so ship it; and make some money.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:27:21 +0000

Apple doesn’t need to support a jailbroken phone. In fact, it’s easy for them not to. Why? Because when a jailbroken phone is restored in iTunes, it’s no longer a jailbroken phone. All Apple has to do is instate a policy that reads “if a phone is jailbroken, it must be restored BEFORE any support is provided.” The current 3G unlock is in-RAM so it gets disabled on restore as well.

As for the potential to disrupt networks … the baseband modem in the iPhone is as locked down as in any “open” 3G phone. So even if you jailbreak, there’s no potential for such problems. The reason for the unlock is tha a buffer overflow exploit was found, but Apple has already patched it for 3.1 .
IMO, SIM proxy cards are more dangerous but those can easily be used on a non-jailbroken phone.

By: Raymond

Raymond — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:39:25 +0000

Perhaps apple could take the wind out the EFF’s sails by allowing locally stored web apps similar to the palm pre. It seems to me that while the EFF has an ideological axe to grind, they pick up common support from people interested in apps that Apple would not support through the app store. Apple already has been moving along this way with bookmarks on the home screen as icons and iPhone 2.1 adding full screen webapp support [ http://ajaxian.com/archives/iphone-full-screen-webapps ] and html 5 support in 3.0.
If apple added local storage then webapps could be come more mainstream. There are many apps in the app store that are little more than glorified web pages. Of course not every kind of app can be made a webapp, but a sizeable number could.

By: Dorotea

Dorotea — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:15:43 +0000

You paid for your iPhone which is hardware and software. It ain’t an iPhone without both.

If I were Apple I wouldn’t support iPhone’s if jailbroken.

By: oomu

oomu — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:29:24 +0000

EFF is right, EVERYONE should have the possibility, without hack and crazy schemes, to use their own made applications on their own iphone.

EFF is not about linux, the EFF is not FSF, the EFF is not about opensource or free software or destruction of the world by snoppy-woozy gsm hacking.

You have lost the big picture here: you paid your iphone.

By: oomu

oomu — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:26:45 +0000

Daniel Eran Dilger , you are all right here, technically, as always

but, people just want to use their OWN made software on their OWN BOUGHT IPHONE.

There are some criminals wanting to copy commercial software and destroy the world. These horrible filthy persons are criminals and the police will lock them down

but people just want to use their own iphone. Apple needs to allow xcode to create private certificate for free. Not certificate for mass publication on the itunes store

private certificate to use on Our own-paid iphone for our own-made applications.

and you will see, the EFF will let go, people will shutdown Dark Evil blogs speaking about hack

and Apple will be saved from the mischievous hackers

and you will sleep well.

Take care.

Yours sincerely.

By: tact

tact — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 07:29:58 +0000

Just a comment on the sentiments expressed by many that go like this: “I bought and paid for this device and so should be allowed to modify it any way I like”. Some are using this in reference to iPhone.

There are lots of material possessions we might spend our hard earned cash on, and own outright, and are NOT allowed to modify.
For example – there are laws that prohibit Bluegrass J Redneck from modifying his legally purchased, owned outright, semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic sawn-off concealable weapon.

For example – it is illegal for Billy P Revhead to make any of a huge list of modifications to his legally purchased and fully owned motor vehicle.

These compare, perhaps properly if there is no distortion in this article, to modifying the radio side of an iPhone.

So do please get over the matter that there may be some parts of your iPhone, yes the one you bought with your cash and own outright, that you are not permitted to modify.

I am NOT saying this applies to the limiting of software that can be run on your iPhone. Different matter totally.

On that totally different matter:
I find it comforting to run my iPhone non-jail broken and run only apps I source from the app store.

Just like I run my Ubuntu box – only ever using software from Ubuntu repositories because I understand it has been screened and approved and thought safe. (just like iPhone + app store)

There are non-official repos full of software I could run on my Ubuntu box. But I don’t. Not on a box I want to be as reliable as my (i)phone day in and day out. ;)

By: mrsteveman1

mrsteveman1 — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:24:23 +0000

Ok, i must be missing something here

“In fact, while Android offers developers an open source, unrestricted app development platform, it does not expose open access to the baseband processor. Even OpenMoko and Greenphone, both earlier attempt to deliver a wide open phone aimed at hardware hackers in the tinker community, did not expose open access to the baseband processor. There’s a good reason why all these “open phones” don’t expose access to their baseband processor: it’s illegal.”

Are we saying the iPhone does expose access to the baseband processor? And that jailbreaking tears down the last line of defense?