Stories Of iBricks Scaring Users Away From Apple Security Patches

from the whoops dept

Tue, Oct 2nd 2007 9:51am — Mike Masnick

With stories of iPhones (even those who weren't unlocked) getting iBricked, it seems that there's a growing trend for people to fear Apple's security patches. Apparently the rumors of possible damage to phones (kicked off by Apple's own announcement) has spread widely enough that the message getting through isn't "don't unlock your iPhone," as Apple may have intended -- but, "don't update your iPhone with official Apple patches." From Apple's perspective, that can't be a good thing. Perhaps, next time, they'll be a bit more careful in crafting patches.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: iphones, security patches
Companies: apple

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

dorpus, 2 Oct 2007 @ 10:00am

Mass Graves
Will there be secret mass graves of unsold i-phones dumped in forests, international sanctions imposed upon Apple?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ajax 4Hire, 2 Oct 2007 @ 10:01am

Seems like Apple is taking a page from
Microsoft's play book.

It is my computer, mine, that I own.
It is my iPod, my iPhone, mine, that I own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2007 @ 10:22am

An ex roommate put iTunes on my computer. There's no easy way of getting rid of it (same with an lexmark printer programs). I turned off the updates with zonealarm. I hope there's an easy way to ignore them with an iPhone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2007 @ 11:14am
  
  Re:
  Uh. Yea, you go to control panel in windows and to add/remove programs and then remove the damn thing. After that go into program files and delete the damn itunes folder. It really isn't hard to get rid of. At least, no more so than any other program/game.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Paul, 2 Oct 2007 @ 11:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    iTunes is a somewhat invasive software program. Uninstalling it *can* actually cause various other peripherals or programs to work incorrectly. It's also very tied in with Quicktime, so its next to impossible to have one without the other (or at least some portion of the other).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2007 @ 11:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's why I use gtkpod (no iTunes for linux)...and it already works with apple's new DRM on the iTunesDB.
      
      I'm wishing I never got an iPod and instead got something more open to different file formats.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Paul, 2 Oct 2007 @ 11:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the iPod is open to different file formats. Its just not open to different DRM formats. There are few systems that are. I'm no huge fan of Apple, but saying the iPod is such a closed system is ridiculous. The only thing "closed" is the DRM on songs that are purchased, but when it comes down to it, MOST online stores put DRM on their files that only work on a select few systems.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anthony Kaldis, 2 Oct 2007 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Uhh yea, its called ipod linux. you install it and then you can play all the formats if you can find linux codecs. DRM can br removed with DBPowerAmp. Just download the Mp4 codec and convert all to wav, wma, ogg or ape then back to mp3
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Strofcon, 2 Oct 2007 @ 12:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's impossible to run iTunes without Quicktime, but it very much possible to run Quicktime without iTunes. In fact, there is absolutely no undue hindrance introduced by choosing to run Quicktime without iTunes. Also, iTunes doesn't integrate with, or even acknowledge the existence of any other program than Quicktime, let alone peripherals. I have installed and uninstalled both iTunes and Quicktime from more computers than I care to remember, and have never had an issue arise that was caused by the addition or removal of either program (exluding, of course, iTunes' failure to load after Quicktime is removed).
      
      Now, whether or not it is 'acceptable' for iTunes to require Quicktime is another issue that I won't tackle here. I just wanted to set the record straight, as your claim is a little skewed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Long, 2 Oct 2007 @ 11:25am

Stories
"With stories of iPhones..."

Yeah, can't imagine who'd be propagating stories like that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Name, 2 Oct 2007 @ 11:30am

Reminds me of canceling windows genuine disadvantage updates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul, 2 Oct 2007 @ 11:42am

in my opinion...
Personally, I find it hard to believe that they can't write a decent patch for a system as closed as the iPhone. Honestly, this may prove they wrote part of the update to brick the unlocked iPhones. It sounds like a failed method to "fix" unlocked iPhones. Whenever a system tries to block some unofficial patch, it usually catches some innocent bystanders and this is what that looks like. Its either that OR they just suck at writing patches. I mean, MS writes patches FREQUENTLY for an insanely more complex system IN A SMALLER ALLOTMENT OF TIME and doesn't brick as nearly the same amount of systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snipergod87, 2 Oct 2007 @ 1:47pm

iTunes required quicktime for video media playback say if you download a TV episode from the iTunes store. so it makes sense if its bundled together but i think you should be able to seperate what is installed because i use quicktime alternative. And back on the subject of iPhones im all for people hacking them i mean whats with apple and having an excluive deal with AT&T. no matter what happle does people are going to hack their iPhones just as no matter what the RIAA does people will download music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
common_sense, 2 Oct 2007 @ 6:41pm

proof?
the reference here is only an opinion of a security firms analyst - not based upon any facts or figures.
"With the iPhone update, Apple is now producing a fear of taking their patches," Storms said. "If they release a functionality update and security fixes at the same time in the future, some users will think twice about applying it. They'll ask themselves, 'What will it break this time?' Will it backfire on me?'
if someone didn't hack their iphone, they won't be thinking this. that's a rather weak argument to reference in support of a claim that apple should be more careful in crafting their patches. people who purchase the iphone, rather, should be more careful in considering the consequences of their modifications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
otseroeg, 2 Oct 2007 @ 9:04pm

Ibrick . . .
I, for one, would have been a relatively early adopter. I was planning on getting at least one IPhone in Dec.'07, when one of the phones on my calling plan was due to expire. Both I and one of my daughters were very interested and I would have been glad to get her and me both one for Christmas. NOW, not only would I not get one, I won't LET my daughter (a full grown 27-year-old adult) get one, unless she wants to go on her own calling plan.

I find the idea of "not supporting" third party software spineless enough (yes, I understand the liability implications), but to actually damage MY product, I find that downright UNAMERICAN! The IPhone isn’t proprietary software that I’m modifying. This is a piece of hardware and I should be able to run whatever software I want to on it.

Okay, yes, I’m a capitalist. I support and encourage Apple’s right to do business in whatever manner they see fit and I reserve the right not to do business with them. However, I don’t believe that Apple is doing business in a fair, open and informed manner. Rather than “not supporting” third party software, they are purposely destroying MY hardware, to punish me for not complying with their restrictions. If they only ever intended to loan out the hardware, then they should have said so up front.

NOTICE:
YOU AGREE THAT THE IPHONE IS THE EXPRESS AND SOVERIEGN PROPERTY OF APPLE, INC. AND THAT YOU AGREE TO THE USE OF APPLE’S PROPERTY UNDER THE TERMS AND RESTRICTIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT . . . blah, blah, legalese, etc, etc.

What’s the point of charging you $400-$600 for something you don’t even own!?!

I've never liked a single Apple product since they stopped making the Apple IIc. I might have returned to the fold, with the advent of the IPhone. I’m a tech nut, in love with any technology I can afford to use. I hold an influential position in a community of fairly early adopters and I will use every opportunity to promote the purchase of almost anything else—a Treo, an HTC, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, I don’t care what!—before I’ll EVER recommend an IPhone. Please don’t misunderstand. I don’t “like” the Mac, but I would recommend it for the right job. I actually have. I WOULD HAVE liked the IPhone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthias, 2 Oct 2007 @ 10:26pm

Apple fanboys.
The 600$ price tag with a 2-year lockin alone should have set off enough alarm bells ("ripoff" for those not with me yet).

Throw in the non-replaceable battery and the lack of support for 3rd party apps and you have a very expensive paperweight compared to the competition.

Most sane people would have looked elsewhere, as I did. The apple mystique and aura seems too strong for some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron Martin-Colby (profile), 2 Oct 2007 @ 10:33pm

Good
Apple deserves the bad press. If for no other reason than they got into bed with AT&T. Me? I'm sitting pretty with Symbian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]