Much ado about the iPhone's 'kill switch'
The discovery of a "kill switch" inside the iPhone 2.0 software prompted much consternation and little fact-finding.
(Credit: Apple)Apple's iPhone "kill switch" has prompted much hand-wringing, despite the fact that no one knows exactly what it does.
Jonathan Zdziarski, an independent iPhone developer and author, recently discovered a URL while poking around inside the iPhone 2.0 software that downloads a list of "malicious" applications every so often to the iPhone, as noted by Ben Wilson at our sister site iPhone Atlas. Several outlets quickly seized on this detail as proof that Apple is poised to remotely disable any application running on the iPhone that it finds unpalatable.
Before we get into the ways in which Apple might use the blacklist, let's remember that we don't know a damn thing about how this actually works. "All we know is that the iPhone downloads a list of malicious URLs," Zdziarski said in an e-mail exchange Thursday morning. "For all we know, it could trigger world war 3, or it could cause some computer somewhere to spit out recipes for buttermilk pancakes."
There are several explanations for what Apple might be up to. One possibility is that Apple could use this function as a sort of recall notice for applications that were discovered to be malicious or potentially harmful after making it through the initial screening process.
Apple is requiring developers to sign their iPhone applications so that the authors can be tracked, and is vetting every single iPhone application before it is distributed through the App Store. But if Apple later realizes it has to revoke a developer's signature because that developer created a malicious app that slipped through the cracks, that would only prevent new installations of that application. It wouldn't do anything to help the users who have already downloaded that application, but a recall notice (and a refund) would indeed be helpful if the initial round of quality control fails.
Another possibility is that Apple could use this service like an antivirus application, which periodically downloads a list of known Trojans, malware, or other malicious applications and alerts the user. This is perhaps a little more far-fetched at this point, since Apple controls the iPhone development process so tightly, but perhaps one day they plan to open up the process more broadly to where iPhone applications can be distributed through something other than the App Store.
Larry Dignan at ZDnet points out that Apple could have included this function as a nod to enterprise customers who might want tight control over what applications are installed on their handsets. Many corporate IT shops don't even allow people to install unapproved applications on their PCs, and you can bet those folks would want to control what gets installed on one of their iPhones.
All iPhone applications are supposed to pass through the App Store, but what it something malicious slips through the cracks?
(Credit: CNET)And, of course, there is the possibility that Apple could use this blacklist to disable any applications that it decides are violations of its (or its carrier partners') terms of service, or ones that compete with current or future Apple applications. This theory is not entirely the work of paranoid conspiracy theorists, as Apple's tight-fisted control over the iPhone development process chafes many developers who might be tempted to strike out on their own with applications that go after Apple's core businesses, such as iTunes.
Zdziarski noted that any "truly malicious software is going to find a way to burrow deeper into the iPhone's operating system so that a simple mechanism like this wouldn't affect it... so really the only type of applications this could effectively kill off are applications that are annoying to Apple, but not malicious. That certainly calls for a lot more concern."
But the thing is, we just don't know. Until Apple explains why it has included this function, or an application appears on the blacklist and is wiped from someone's phone, it's all just the usual leaping to conclusions on a sleepy Thursday in August.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
Is that what it means? Or is that just what you're guessing it means in order to justify your hatred of Apple?
How do you know that it disables software "without even prompting you"? Have you seen the software? Do you know how it operates? Or is that just what you want to believe it does?
For example, with DVR's I think Ecostar was ordered awhile ago to wipe the contents of all of it's DVR units that fell in a certain product group. I remember receiving something in the form of an upgrade and later realizing all my shows were deleted. I'm guessing some networks (Viacom?) got pissed and claimed copyright infringement and Ecostar was ordered to do this.
I will make room for the Apple fanboi's to use their caplocks, but just wanted to say all this red team vs. blue team commentary by the respective fanboi communities is getting boring.
Second of all, I meant that in response to the discovery of the kill-switch, the Internet freaked out and started frantically searching for their copies of 1984 rather than trying to figure out exactly what the kill-switch does. As far as I can tell, I'm the only person who contacted Jonathan for follow-up.
Third of all, thanks for the compliment on my grammar, but that's why we have editors.
Perhaps you would better understand the phrase if it was constructed this way: "The discovery of a "kill-switch" inside the iPhone 2.0 software prompted much consternation BUT little fact-finding." Grammatically speaking, there's nothing wrong with the sentence, but some people who are interpretationally challenged (meaning "dumb") may have difficulty understanding the sentence. But then again, seventy percent of the population is interpretationally challenged these days.
I believe the developer who discovered the line of code stated it wasn't being used.
So let me get this straight, you all are complaining about Apple for discovery of a line of code that possibly protects the developers investments and ability to earn money from legally selling their products, who as a software company otherwise doesn't force registration of software products or forces you to marry your application to your hardware like Microsoft or Adobe does? You complaining about a company who for the most part uses the honor system when it comes to stuff like this and your complaining about something that is not truly implemented?
Must be a slow news day for writers and respondents.
Apple has yet to refund me. I am very livid!
I have a VNC client on my iPhone, it works just like it did 2 weeks ago, and I'm as happy as a clam
Re: The iPhone
You had me at Hello, but lost me at 2.0
The new software is buggy and slow.
Should we wait for a less proprietary 3.0?
Or will something more open command tomorrow.
Its amazing how bloggers can completely ignore the actual facts of the case (i.e. they don't have them) and leap ahead to the worst case scenarios.
buddesatva completely disregards the intent of the story so that he can pick on the literally shortcomings of an individual - an Apply fanboy trait that I've noticed throughout many blogs.
MaggieRed - how does having this protect the developer investments??? If the iPhone owner already purchased the developers application then the developer received what he wanted - money for his product. And if a developer chooses to give his app away, then he received what he wanted as well - notoriety and credit.
The way I see it, if a person purchases a phone...any phone, they should be able to add to it whatever they want. If an app screws up the phone then its on them and not the manufacturer to fix it.
wheresjustice - if this is something that Apple hasn't announced or advertised then it seems to me that the 'user' doesn't have access to this and, therefore, can't disable his device if its lost or stolen. This 'kill-switch' is for Apple and nobody else.
Any tool can be used for good or bad. Lets see what Apple does with this. Then we can all hysterically run around in circles screaming our heads of like a bunch of Microturfing fanboys.
Sure, there's a danger that Apple will start blocking apps that compete with their own, or apps that do things Apple doesn't like. In those cases the third-party app vendors/distributors have legal tools to their disposal such as anti-trust laws and the EFF.
Just think of it this way -- if your iPhone crashes because of some little-known app you just installed on it, who do you blame? Apple. No one ever blames the little guy.
If you're an app developer that's pissed off by this, that just means you don't want to play by Apple's rules. If that's the case, go find another platform to code your app on (or even better, build your own one).
sobes.
As long as they refund the money you already paid for the app to the consumer.
Nice job Apple !!
- by Riquez-001 August 7, 2008 3:43 PM PDT
- You people jump to conclusions too quickly.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by mishmash0101 August 8, 2008 12:33 PM PDT
- That is what everyone on CNET would be doing if this was MS. Why should the response be different just because its Apple?
-
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (57 Comments)Cnet, why not do a story called "Is Steve Jobs a witch?" & then everyone can jump in with calls of BURN HIM!