Key iPhone Source Code Gets Posted Online • Hacker News Board

Re: Key iPhone Source Code Gets Posted Online

#101

Post by draw_down » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 7:24 PM UTC

rgovostes wrote: post #52

okket wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then maybe Apple leaked this code intentionally to harvest free security reviews?

Please, it doesn’t help anything to publish unfounded conspiracy theories. Apple already publishes open source projects and has a bug bounty in which they pay for security vulnerabilities in some areas of iOS. It’s ludicrous to advance the theory that they hatched a plan to leak this important project to Reddit instead of through one of their official channels.

Don’t think GP was entirely serious.

Re: Key iPhone Source Code Gets Posted Online

#102

Post by Steko » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 7:39 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #98

jmull wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they ruled Apple had immunity because their petition could not be construed as a sham. Also, they ruled there were no facts to support the Apple/Amazon conspiracies the plaintiff suggested AND ruled there wasn't even any hope that such facts could be supplied where the suit to be amended. Whatever lie you think Apple is guilty of, there doesn't appear to be any sign of it amongst the material of the suit. Going…

I don't think the court ended up considering the main point, which is that Apple had no evidence that H2F's units specifically were fake.

No evidence?

H2F's complaint included customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products, which could support Apple's trademark infringement and counterfeiting concerns, and therefore Apple's notice to Amazon was not baseless.

Re: Key iPhone Source Code Gets Posted Online

#103

Post by ikeboy » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 7:46 PM UTC

Steko wrote: post #102

ikeboy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the court ended up considering the main point, which is that Apple had no evidence that H2F's units specifically were fake.

No evidence? H2F's complaint included customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products, which could support Apple's trademark infringement and counterfeiting concerns, and therefore Apple's notice to Amazon was not baseless.

I believe the complaints were on the listing, which means Apple had no way to know which seller it was from

Re: Key iPhone Source Code Gets Posted Online

#104

Post by ikeboy » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 7:52 PM UTC

Steko wrote: post #102

ikeboy wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the court ended up considering the main point, which is that Apple had no evidence that H2F's units specifically were fake.

No evidence? H2F's complaint included customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products, which could support Apple's trademark infringement and counterfeiting concerns, and therefore Apple's notice to Amazon was not baseless.

See paragraph 37 and the other ones around it in https://www.scribd.com/document/232206495/Hard-2-Find-compla...

The court appeared to ignore the point there.

Note that "customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products" do not appear in the complaint.

Re: Key iPhone Source Code Gets Posted Online

#105

Post by softawre » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 7:57 PM UTC

blueish wrote: post #2

Here's the link to the github repo, since the article didn't mention it: https://github.com/h1x0rz3r0/iBoot

Source live as of now: https://0xacab.org/sizeofcat/iBoot

Re: Key iPhone Source Code Gets Posted Online

#106

Post by Steko » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 8:54 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #103

Steko wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No evidence? H2F's complaint included customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products, which could support Apple's trademark infringement and counterfeiting concerns, and therefore Apple's notice to Amazon was not baseless.

I believe the complaints were on the listing, which means Apple had no way to know which seller it was from

Apple could send out takedown/cease and desist to any and all sellers if they wanted, based on the reviews of counterfeit. They could also connect reviews of "cheap" "counterfeit" goods to the one seller massively undercutting the rest which was also not an authorized seller of Apple products and since Apple is the manufacturer and distributor, they may have been able to eliminate other sellers. Which appears to be what they did. Was this overzealous or a dumb mistake? Maybe, maybe not - it's not clear that H2F wasn't selling counterfeit cases (""H2F also cannot support its conclusory assertion that the iPad cases it sold were genuine because it cannot say how or from whom it acquired them"). But it certainly wasn't a sham and that's the only bar Apple needs to clear for immunity under Noer-Pennington.

Re: Key iPhone Source Code Gets Posted Online

#107

Post by Retroity » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 9:08 PM UTC

rambojazz wrote: post #34

How to confirm it's not a farce but the actual source code? I could post anything, whatever, and say "this is iBoot leaked".

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2018/2018-02-08-A...

Apple submitted this DMCA to GitHub, and admitted, under penalty of perjury, that this source code is legitimate. Additionally, if it was fake, they wouldn't submit a DMCA.

Re: Key iPhone Source Code Gets Posted Online

#108

Post by ikeboy » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 9:10 PM UTC

Steko wrote: post #106

ikeboy wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the complaints were on the listing, which means Apple had no way to know which seller it was from

Apple could send out takedown/cease and desist to any and all sellers if they wanted, based on the reviews of counterfeit. They could also connect reviews of "cheap" "counterfeit" goods to the one seller massively undercutting the rest which was also not an authorized seller of Apple products and since Apple is the manufacturer and distributor, they may have been able to eliminate other sellers. Which appears to be w…

>Apple could send out takedown/cease and desist to any and all sellers if they wanted, based on the reviews of counterfeit.

That's not the issue here, it's that they sent it to Amazon making false allegations about H2F.

Again, the fact that they don't have liability for their lie doesn't mean it wasn't a lie.

I'd note that the standard for a motion to dismiss is to accept the pleaded claims as fact, so they should accept H2F's claim that their products were geniune.

>one seller massively undercutting the rest

As the complaint says, several other sellers were pricing low.

Re: Key iPhone Source Code Gets Posted Online

#109

Post by JakeTyo » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 11:23 PM UTC

niutech wrote: post #64

peterburkimsher wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says that it was first posted on Reddit, but nobody noticed for a while. The Github copy is almost certainly a repost, by a different author than the original leak. "This source code first surfaced last year, posted by a Reddit user called “apple_internals” on the Jailbreak subreddit. That post didn’t get much attention since the user was new and didn’t have enough Reddit karma; the post was quickly burie…

This is the original Reddit post from Sep 22, 2017: https://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/71p5qs/newsiboot...

This reddit thread still contains a copy of the code. >.<

Re: Key iPhone Source Code Gets Posted Online

#110

Post by jmull » Fri, Feb 09, 2018, 12:36 AM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #98

jmull wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they ruled Apple had immunity because their petition could not be construed as a sham. Also, they ruled there were no facts to support the Apple/Amazon conspiracies the plaintiff suggested AND ruled there wasn't even any hope that such facts could be supplied where the suit to be amended. Whatever lie you think Apple is guilty of, there doesn't appear to be any sign of it amongst the material of the suit. Going…

I don't think the court ended up considering the main point, which is that Apple had no evidence that H2F's units specifically were fake.

Wait a sec... you cited this case. If it doesn't actually address your main point then why reference it?

You're making pretty strong claims but are providing links to back it up that don't actually back it up. I don't see why anyone would take what you're saying seriously.