According to Denver-based security consultant Charlie Miller, the Apple App store is vulnerable to infiltration by malware apps that can pose a significant risk to Apple customers. Miller, 4-time winner of the Pwn2Own hacking contest and an employee of security consulting firm Accuvant, managed to submit and gain Apple's approval to sell an app that exploited a previously unknown iOS bug.
The app, a fake stock ticker called "Instastock", works by exploiting an exception Apple made for the Safari browser with iPhone 4.3. Previously, all apps had to be signed in to its e-mart; any code not signed is subsequently rejected by iOS. With iPhone 4.3, the Safari browser itself - functionally similar to any other app - was excluded from that requirement in order to expedite the execution of Javascript execution. Miller's fake stock ticker app spoofed Safari code, tricking iOS into waving it through customs, so to speak. Once installed, "Instastock" pings a server at Miller's home and requests to download additional software, proving that the App Store can be used to distribute malware to unsuspecting customers with surprising ease.
Though Miller may have done Apple an enormous favor by identifying an enormous vulnerability and making it public, a move likely to help Apple avoid the fate of the Android market, which has had a notorious problem with malware apps in the last year, Apple isn't having it. Yesterday, Miller tweeted that he'd been kicked out of Apple's iOS developer program. Miller claims to have informed Apple of the flaw in October, but didn't warn them about putting the App for sale (a move he insists was necessary to prove the flaw's seriousness).
He has now been officially banned from the iOS developer program for one full year. Probably for the best, as not having to worry about people helping to identify potential threats to their customers will give Apple more time to pursue vicious legal action against tiny competitors.
While Google pays for each vulnerability that people discover in Chrome. I hope Miller embarrasses Apple real bad next time.
No, it's just controlling.
Apple made the terms and conditions you mentioned, they could have bent their own rules for the greater good (and their own). It's not about that, it's about their stupid pride and claim they're secure by default; when someone points at the holes in their shoes, this is the answer.
This is nonsense. He didn't get banned for finding the problem, pointing the problem out, or even telling them the problem, all of which he should have done. He got banned for deliberately adding an app to the app store which can leave any users phone vulnerable.
By banning him, Apple could have anticipated that it would get far more publicity and it's therefore clearly not an act of 'denial' or being 'controlling' or trying to stop people 'knowing about it'. They banned him to make it perfectly clear that while finding a virus is acceptable, deliberately spreading said virus is not. There is a big, big difference.
If someone finds an exploit in some software which can be exploited, they should simply develop a proof of concept, and privately demonstrate it to the company. Contrary to one or two misinformed comments on this comments section, he did not do this, but instead decided to go one step further and leave the mass market vulnerable to the virus. This is obviously, clearly irresponsible, and Apple were left with no choice but to stop him doing it
Ironically, Charlie Miller has repeatedly stated that iOS is far more secure than Android, so again that proves this isn't about trying to cover things up, it's just their only choice.
Quote:
'0xcharlie
@ioerror lol, cause google is nice, oh wait, they tried to get me fired when I reported my first android bug, nm.'
Seems like Google tried to take it one step further to sweep things under the rug.
http://twitter.com/#!/0xcharlie
I imagine stealing money from people already willing to get shafted by apple would be much more profitable than attempting this kinda thing on others.
It was his own computer it linked too. I do not think he was sending out viruses. He did prove that the Apple screening process is still crap. If he can do it how many other apps are out there like this with a real payload on the other end.
He did tell them. they just did not care. It is hard to hear people when you and rolling in money....
And is that compared to the relatively non-existent app screening process of Android? Relatively the screening process is still a success and has minor flaws every now and then. I don't expect perfection in software ever.
If your phone could be controlled by a notorious hacker at will, I think you'd regard it as having a virus. The computer it connects to can always be compromised.
He proved that the screening process isn't perfect, but he didn't need to do that in order to prove the issue. He told them, and they did care, and they are probably working on a fix. That doesn't make it OK to infect potentially thousands of people to prove the point.
At least there actually is screening on iOS unlike Android which is a free-for-all. Apple could remotely remove this malicious app from all infected phones instantly, Android could not.
The fact that he made the problem public is not the problem. The fact that he went a step further and infected people, is the problem. Apple had no choice. They can't allow any individual to release apps which allow them to control the users' phones. Very simple, very logical, very obvious. Only a fool would regard basic logic as 'silly'.
:-)