Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#501

Post by hu3 »

Pulcinella wrote: post #415
Brian_K_White wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes in fact they are. I have the amazing ability to recognize a problem even if I don't have it myself*. If you really can't do that, perhaps you should try. * Android user in the US where this dynamic primarily exists, but I just don't care because I'm not 20 any more. I only very occasionally need to send a video or picture to anyone, and in those cases, I know enough to use email or a google photos link or somethi…

[flagged]

Took 5 seconds to search and copy first link:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-apples-imessage-is-winning-...

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#502

Post by meindnoch »

vachina wrote: post #468
skygazer wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, incoming SMS are mostly spam, and other low trust notifications, while incoming iMessages, even if unknown to me, are likely to be real people. Buying an Apple device is an expensive signal, and Apple will quickly shut down abusers, maintaining that relatively high bar. Letting (actual) Android users use iMessage probably wouldn’t affect that, but the open source hack/reversing of it opened the door…

Huh, I used to receive spam on iMessage with blue bubbles. In fact the only blue bubbles I receive are spam.

[flagged]

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#504

Post by JumpCrisscross »

willseth wrote: post #458
jrflowers wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think about it, blocking an app and stealing your fire extinguishers are both actions that a person or corporation could theoretically do. Since they are both actions, they are equivalent. Therefore blocking an app, burning down your house, baking a pie, writing a sonnet, doing a backflip are all the same thing.

Ahhh and to think all this time I thought I knew what a metaphor was. It’s literally any comparison! Silly me!

Really, your comment is equivalent to a black hole or pomegranate, since they’re all things.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#505

Post by Arch485 »

blindriver wrote: post #108

As someone in tech, I think it's awesome they were able to find a way into iMessage. As an iPhone user, I hate the idea that spammers can now use iMessage, and I'm glad the service was taken down. Both things can be true at once.

but... Spammers can still message you via SMS? In either case, they just need to get your phone number. SMS vs iMessage doesn't make much of a difference.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#506

Post by Mogzol »

jiggawatts wrote: post #463
explaininjs wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should have been obvious to anyone who saw the code where it simply contained the raw literal string `FAIRPLAY_PRIVATE_KEY = b64decode(“…”)`. I suppose now we’ll see how accurate the commenter’s claim “if this becomes a problem, I know how to generate new keys” is. https://github.com/JJTech0130/pypush/blob/main/albert.py#L16

[flagged]

In this case it makes sense, the key is a "private key" in the cryptographic sense, but it's not "private" in regards to the pypush app, it's needed for the app to work, so it needs to be public information or else the app would be useless for anyone who didn't have that key.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#507

Post by rezonant »

pxeboot wrote: post #350
llm_nerd wrote: post #290

This was the obvious outcome. People were being willfully blind about how this "hack" works. Using an exfiltrated binary they used its blackbox functions to perform a sort of device attestation using ripped Apple device identifiers. Clearly Apple simply needs to blacklist any device attestation that this service uses, which is obviously trivial. These aren't just RNGs they're fabricating, they're sets of legitimate A…

And Apple didn't even need to block any device identifiers, just the IPs Beeper Mini was using to connect to the APN service. This could have been blocked in minutes. The delay was likely to get approval from Legal.

Only BPNs used Beeper hosted services, and this is an optional component of the app (which enables push notifications when Mini is not running).

Otherwise the IP Apple sees is those of the individual handsets on whatever network they are on.

It's pretty likely that they blocked Mini based on the IDS (Identity Service) which requires the device to pass it's hardware model, serial number, and disk UUID as described elsewhere.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#508

Post by Arch485 »

g42gregory wrote: post #244

This is what monopolies (or duopolies) usually do. Basically, they can do whatever they like in the market. I think that the antitrust enforcement is critical in a “free” market. But neither parties would do it. I am guessing Democrats think that they can get some benefits from Apple’s control. And Republicans are simply paid off. The consumers end up bearing a brunt of it.

Small correction: Republicans _and_ democrats get paid off. Both groups are made up of politicians, after all.

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#509

Post by pavel_lishin »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #378
runnerup wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember another post that was very well-received where an individual hacker wrote his own homebrew iMessage client for his own personal purposes. HN really liked that! I think HN exists at an intersection of individual hackerism and business. If a project is clearly by-hackers-for-hackers it gets a lot more leeway for unsustainable concepts / implementations. But this is building a business on adversarial interope…

You're allowed to admire the technical implementation while denouncing the business model at the same time.

Are we talking about Beeper Mini, or Apple?

Re: Apple cuts off Beeper Mini's access

#510

Post by rezonant »

pxeboot wrote: post #442
zxt_tzx wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just the IPs Beeper Mini was using to connect to the APN service. Hmm, wouldn't blocking IPs be overly broad and risked affecting regular users? Considering that IPs are scarce and constantly recycled by ISPs etc. Blocking device identifiers sounds more targeted and, for that reason, realistic.

If you take a look at their How it Works post [1] this is not an entirety client side implementation, so there would presumably be a small number of IPs that would need to be blocked. [1] https://blog.beeper.com/p/how-beeper-mini-works

In that very article they mention you can turn BPNs off, it is just used to listen to APNs when the app is not running. If that's what they blocked, Beeper Mini would still work while the app is running, or at least when that setting is turned off.
Post reply on HN