^apparently iOS is horribly exploitable, like many have been telling you for some time.
It is worth noting that none of the exploits bypassed the new, PAC-based JIT hardenings that are enabled on A12 devices.
“It feels like the amount of effort that went into the exploits is very significant,” said Charles Holmes, a managing principal research consultant who focuses on mobile security at Atredis partners. “Maintaining capabilities off of the last three years of iOS and a combination of hardware devices and firmware—a lot of time and effort went into that. My gut feels like some nation was behind maintaining that capability.”
Funny thing is windows phone was pretty secure for the time but everyone rejected it
Its even more secure now, if you consider security through obscurity to be a thing.
I'm still rocking a 1020.
iPhones have never been "obscure" and Apple has never depended on security by obscurity for the iOS platform.
Keep telling yourself this. You're wrong.
Its even more secure now, if you consider security through obscurity to be a thing.
I'm still rocking a 1020.
I just gave up on my Lumia 950 like a month ago. I'm amazed by how ahead of its time it was in several ways.
People are sheep. Win phone should have killed it.
Fortunatley for server admins, iOS is not used in their practice. The bossman who has an iPad in the executive office, however, might be a liability to the company.
iPhones have never been "obscure" and Apple has never depended on security by obscurity for the iOS platform. It has always been locked down far tighter than Android. Apple doesn't want unauthorized non-AppStore code to run, even if it's not malicious.
iOS has always had a far greater emphasis on security than Android.
But keep pretending like iOS doesn't have MAJOR security issues in spite of Apple's fluff that they're doing so much for security.
See above, Apple has to let some external management or else they wouldn't be used in those markets, and that has opened things up to lots of exploits.
Lack of useful apps killed it
Microsoft’s hope that being easy to port apps from google/Apple was foolish. Why would either company allow MS to collect money for them.
There's no patch & update to be had when the vulnerabilities are hidden. The implant left no trace on the device, only used exploit chains to load itself in RAM. A simple device reboot would erase it, but by that time it would have already uploaded enough sensitive data to allow (permanent) access to the victim's online accounts.I would suggest though that Apple is far more likely than any Android vendor to actually patch and push the updates. And for a much longer period of time.
iPhones have never been "obscure" and Apple has never depended on security by obscurity for the iOS platform. It has always been locked down far tighter than Android. Apple doesn't want unauthorized non-AppStore code to run, even if it's not malicious.
iOS has always had a far greater emphasis on security than Android.
I think he's saying that there's quite a few companies where the admins have to take iOS into account as they let their employees use iPhones and iPads.
I also haven't seen much mention of patching on the low end for Atom and AMD's AM1 platform.
. . . such as a clueless executive, or what have you. I get that much. You think they'd be segmented from core infrastructure though.
Anything that connects to the internet can be exploited. Including iOS devices. I would suggest though that Apple is far more likely than any Android vendor to actually patch and push the updates. And for a much longer period of time.
Heck, its enough that even high ranking (highest ranking really) government officials are even willing to compromise things so they can use their devices.
Back on topic, another day, another Intel security issue:
Another day, another cache base attack exposing Intel's lack of access right enforcement on the cache. That's one deep rabbit hole.Back on topic, another day, another Intel security issue:
![]()
Weakness in Intel chips lets researchers steal encrypted SSH keystrokes
DDIO makes servers faster. It can also allow rogue servers to covertly steal data.arstechnica.com
At least Intel isn't ignoring it, guess we'll see if Anandtech will like they have been other Intel vulnerabilities lately.
RDMA is only used as convenience by the researchers, it's DDIO that needs to be turned off. And DDIO is a transparent performance improvement, so transparent that it apparently can't be secured. One would guess after early examples like Firewire system architects would get the memo that unrestricted direct memory access from outside the CPU is always a bad idea.I had completely forgotten about DDIO. Actually I don't remember if I ever knew about it in the first place. Why am I not surprised? Disabling RDMA looks like it could have some pretty serious performance implications for clusters.