What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
55 Comments
- wampalord, on 03/23/2009, -2/+91Thanks for defining "pwn" for us
- 42Vindictive, on 03/23/2009, -2/+35Holy ***** this is like listening to your Grandma for tech help.
- nailPuppy, on 03/23/2009, -1/+11In fact, there were very few attempts made. Tipping Point’s twitter feed mentioned only two: one against a BlackBerry and another against a Nokia phone running Symbian.
Yes, they sure won. Against two attempts. - deadmoo, on 03/23/2009, -2/+11The biggest ***** part is hinting at the assumption that these smartphones are secure just because no one hacked them during this contest.
- inactive, on 03/23/2009, -9/+17what the ***** is this doing on the front page - this is *****
- BalancingAct, on 03/23/2009, -2/+9"Windows Mobile, he said, was the easiest to defeat"
Nothing to read here...move along - daPhoenix, on 03/23/2009, -0/+7?
I edit my ringtones on the PC / Mac with my favorite audio editor, such as Soundforge or Logic, then amazingly copy the file to the cellphones memory via BT or USB.
Now, when does the paying part come into the picture?
(And thankfully, our law permits taking 30 second sound clips without paying anything for them - so I have the peace of mind knowing I'm not breaking any laws either) - ehaugan, on 03/23/2009, -1/+7FTA :
"In fact, there were very few attempts made. Tipping Point’s twitter feed mentioned only two: one against a BlackBerry and another against a Nokia phone running Symbian."
I guess those smartphones showed them whose boss! A whopping 2 people tried to hack a blackberrry and a nokia phone!
Seriously, who writes this garbage? - DocHoliday22, on 03/23/2009, -2/+7I think the definition was there for regular folks
- inactive, on 03/23/2009, -0/+4It doesn't hint at that. Read the article again.
'But there’s no question that smartphones are vulnerable to attack.' - ell0bo, on 03/23/2009, -3/+6i believe, as this kids say these days, you just pwn'd him.
- ianbirtwistle, on 03/23/2009, -5/+8This is the first time I logged in to Digg down.
- fmaxwell, on 03/23/2009, -1/+4Or better yet, just use the sounds that the phone came with and quit acting like a bunch of tweens.
- fmaxwell, on 03/23/2009, -1/+3The phones were harder to crack because they have less complex operating systems and applications. Complexity increases risk. It's a lot easier to harden a smaller code base.
- inactive, on 03/23/2009, -2/+4Its bury, not digg down.
- 1d0n7kn0wwh01am, on 03/23/2009, -0/+2Ummm, well long distance calls are free from almost all landlines anymore, and lots of people have unlimited anywhere minutes on their cell phones. Point being, there's little motivation to steal phones for the purpose of making phone calls anymore.
As far as data, people should know better not to put info like credit card accounts and social security numbers in their information Plus, there is software, like Kaspersky Mobile, and probably from every cell phone provider, that will 'wipe' your phone and erase everything on it once you report it stolen. Kaspersky lets you simply program a code from the internet account or other methods to delete it all. So, if it's stolen, act on it as soon as you know it is possibly stolen. Simply back up your phone data on a home computer so you don't lose anything.
You really have to ask, how much motivation is there for a malicious person to hack your phone now? As long as you aren't using your credit or bank card in public places with no encryption, what can really be stolen that would matter that much from the average citizen?
Most people are probably not discussing valid information requiring top secret clearance from the NSA with their Aunt Edna. - hakkzpets, on 03/23/2009, -1/+3I think it has more to do with them getting $5000 for each browser-bug and I guess it's easier to find those bugs. No one wanted to spend their time on the phones.
- Dubbsacc, on 03/23/2009, -1/+3Or even better, do it right on your phone.
MP3 Trimmer is the *****. - fmaxwell, on 03/25/2009, -0/+2@Hamletlere
No, I am not "incorrect." I don't post technical comments which are incorrect.
You wrote:
"The iPhone OS does include support for multiple users (it comes with "mobile" and "root" users). This includes full separation of permissions."
User files related to the Mac OS X environment are installed in /Users/{username}. On the iPhone, there is only one common user, despite being a multiuser operating system. Unlike the Mac, there’s no need for a separate /Users folder, so all of the user software ends up in /usr.
You wrote:
"What architecture an OS is compiled for has nothing to do with whether it is "stripped down" or not. iPhone OS also doesn't include support for Intel x86, seeing as how it is an ARM processor."
Why don't you quit misrepresenting what I wrote? What you did is called a "straw man" logical fallacy: Misrepresent what I wrote and then shoot down that misrepresentation.
I have an x86 based Mac (a Mac Pro). It can run applications written for PowerPC processors using Rosetta, a binary translation capability built into OS X. The capability to run PowerPC, or any non-native processor, applications on the iPhone OS is non-existent. Therefore, it was "stripped" of that.
You wrote:
"You other stuff isn't refuting that the iPhone OS is a full version of Unix (which it is)"
Another straw man argument. I never argued that it was not a full version of Unix. I said that the term "full version of Unix" is a vague term and that, compared to the desktop OS X, it's a much smaller codebase.
You wrote:
"it's just saying that the iPhone OS isn't Mac OS X, which is obvious."
If it's so obvious, why are you arguing? Did you even read my original post? "The phones were harder to crack because they have less complex operating systems and applications. Complexity increases risk. It's a lot easier to harden a smaller code base."
You wrote:
"Oddly enough, the iPhone OS doesn't need printer drivers, USB device drivers, language packs for dozens and dozens of languages, etc. You can extensively cut down on the Mac OS X footprint of you remove these things, as well."
So now you are arguing my point (I wrote "The iPhone's version of OS X is severely stripped down compared to the one that runs on a Mac.") and trying to take credit for it as if you have somehow proven me wrong. Please! - etruscan, on 03/23/2009, -0/+1Cut it out with that filthy pig latin!
- Hamletlere, on 03/23/2009, -2/+3@fmaxwell
You are incorrect. The iPhone OS does include support for multiple users (it comes with "mobile" and "root" users). This includes full separation of permissions.
What architecture an OS is compiled for has nothing to do with whether it is "stripped down" or not. iPhone OS also doesn't include support for Intel x86, seeing as how it is an ARM processor.
You other stuff isn't refuting that the iPhone OS is a full version of Unix (which it is), it's just saying that the iPhone OS isn't Mac OS X, which is obvious. Oddly enough, the iPhone OS doesn't need printer drivers, USB device drivers, language packs for dozens and dozens of languages, etc. You can extensively cut down on the Mac OS X footprint of you remove these things, as well. - CLShortFuse, on 03/23/2009, -0/+1I don't think Microsoft cares about Windows Mobile any more. WM5, 6, 6.1 and 6.5 don't overhaul anything. Just new APIs and graphics to an outdated PocketPC 2000/2002 foundation. It seriously needs to be scrapped completely and started over. You don't see the kind of overhaul done with Vista or 7. It's starting to get pretty sad. Windows Mobile 6.5 is just a new start menu, lock screen and today screen. Nothing 3rd party applications can't do.
- violationz, on 03/23/2009, -0/+1FTA:
Philip Elmer-DeWitt - feliks2, on 03/23/2009, -0/+1You look and sound just like a phone salesman. Try not being so obvious.
- sinnet, on 03/23/2009, -2/+3No no, dig up stupid.
- MahirH, on 03/23/2009, -3/+4Except the part where at the same convention, it was said that the Mac is the easiest to hack in to. A security through obscurity model will only work for so long.
- enoxard, on 03/23/2009, -0/+1with more smartphones entered than hackers, thats not pwn@g3.
- fmaxwell, on 03/23/2009, -1/+2@Andrwmorph
"Only use an old landline phone with a classic ringer!"
I just can't get that excited about any ringer -- whether on a mobile phone or a landline. Give me a mobile phone with landline quality and I'll be very happy. No annoying delay. No dropped calls. Less noise and distortion.
But I just have never heard a ringtone and thought to myself "boy, I just love listening to twelve seconds of that guy's favorite song played through a 3/4" speaker!" - shadowspawn, on 03/23/2009, -0/+1The first rule about fight club...
- fmaxwell, on 03/23/2009, -0/+1{misplaced}
- fmaxwell, on 03/23/2009, -2/+3"A full version of Unix" is a pretty big target. FreeNAS is a "full version of Unix" and it runs on a 486 with 96mb of RAM. The iPhone's version of OS X is severely stripped down compared to the one that runs on a Mac. It does not support multiple users. It is stripped of support for PowerPC apps. It doesn't have multiple drivers to support different video, audio, and driver interfaces.
The entire OS and all of the included applications fit in about 700mb of flash memory and the total RAM is only 128MB of RAM. Contrast that to the minimum system requirements for OS X: 9GB of hard drive space and 512MB of RAM. Over ten times the storage space and four times the RAM. Obviously, there's a lot more to the OS X codebase than there is to the iPhone codebase. - volcompimp, on 03/24/2009, -0/+1Ya ok cause the iphone hasn't already been jailbroken.
- Spawn2105, on 03/23/2009, -0/+1A while back there was reports of people getting scammed when people "hijacked" their phones via bluetooth and placed calls to premium lines... Only worked via bluetooth, but if hackers can figure out a way to do that without having bluetooth turned on, go figure. They just need you to call a $2/min number for a few seconds, but if they do it enough times they could potentially gather quite a sum...
This is a demo of the original scam btw:
http://nerdnirvana.org/2007/01/03/the-real-hustle- ... - TheTikiTony, on 03/23/2009, -1/+1Or Even Better...
CARRIER PIGEONS! - Skurt, on 03/23/2009, -0/+0Not a phone sales 'person' or any other sales type, I am an IT guy at a Major University in CA, I just predicted the obvious was gonna happen, and it has, even though I'm being dugg down for stating as such.
I just love to stir the pot, promote discussion and such but unfortunately digg allows for comments to be buried to hell rather than let them 'out there' for discussion. - deadmoo, on 03/24/2009, -1/+1But the headline does.
- inactive, on 03/23/2009, -2/+2Yeah, nothing to be surprised about here. Windows, whether its on the desktop of the mobile device, is like swiss cheese when it comes to security.
- Andrwmorph, on 03/23/2009, -3/+3Or EVEN BETTER!
Only use an old landline phone with a classic ringer! - kmb1794, on 03/23/2009, -3/+2I thought pwn'd meant to poop on.
- Wawin, on 03/23/2009, -3/+2Or Even Better
Only use an old telegraph with a classic beep beep.! - Grazfather, on 03/23/2009, -5/+4Hah, and I bet if anyone tried to take down an iPhone it would be no problem. Everyone knows the iPhone's security is pretty much non-existent. This article sucks.
- morcheeba, on 03/23/2009, -2/+1The iphone runs a full version of unix, and a browser that is based on the same codebase that runs the desktop versions. The only way it's simpler than a mac is the limited peripheral support (which brings some security - versions 1 & 2 didn't support data over bluetooth, so that's not exploitable)
- Skurt, on 03/23/2009, -1/+0Haters: The day is young.
@NailPuppy said it was easy to hack
@BalancingAct Alluded it was obvious
@gquaglia concurred with @BalancingAct
@MahirH said the Mac was easier
@ehaugan said, sarcastically, who writes this garbage (indicating perhaps he could either write it better or crack the phones, you decide)
@GrazFather said iPhones are easy to crack as security is non-existant.
Digg me down more, however, my statement still stands - there are only 35 comments at this point.
And as I said above, the TOP hackers couldn't get in to the phones, but of course you script kiddies can... /s - inactive, on 03/23/2009, -2/+1GTFO! You Digg? There's a little red 'x' button at the top of the page with the word 'Bury' next to it. For the life of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, CLICK IT!
- NJank, on 03/23/2009, -5/+4yeah, buried for the definition. if you need it defined, I don't want you contributing to digg.
- mrBitch, on 03/23/2009, -3/+2@ MahirH RE: ".. Except the part where at the same convention, it was said that the Mac is the easiest to hack in to. A security through obscurity model will only work for so long."
"Security through obscurity"?
You idiot, that's Microsoft's argument to keeping it's source code closed. it's Windows with it's proprietary closed source that is practising that :
"... proprietary, closed code isn’t invulnerable due to its opaque “security through obscurity.” Windows Vista was cracked in last year’s contest due to a flaw in the Adobe Flash plugin, which is not open source but which security experts were still able to exploit.
Apple’s use of open source allows Apple to issue more security patches and operating system updates than Microsoft does, according to a study of Windows and Mac OS X releases conducted by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology."
Also:
1. The guy (Charlie Miller) who was able to "hack" Safari in the Pwn2Own was still unable to actually hack the Mac OS itself.
2. Charlie Miller has this to say about the whether you should install any Anti-Virus or other security software on a Mac :
"... Miller admitted that he doesn’t bother running any on his Macs. Miller argued. ‘If I was worried about attacks, I would use it, but I’m not worried.’ " - TaKBiR, on 03/23/2009, -8/+5***** seriously? pwn?
- Nephlabobo, on 03/23/2009, -4/+1Is this propoganda written by the corps themselves? Seems like it.
- wolfeater2, on 03/23/2009, -6/+1Wrong.
http://i39.tinypic.com/i6gz1g.jpg - Thedarklord187, on 03/23/2009, -6/+1wow this is bad and i agree with a few of the others this seems like propaganda written by the corps themselves, Its retarded tech lingo understanding and overall fail is horrible. The smart phones are retarded many of the them have been successfully as the article so wonderfully puts it "PWND" stupid old corporate fags
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialoggs, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 