[Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

[richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)]

On 4/4/2016 10:43 PM, Matthew Gillen wrote:
> Would they?  Most (all?) of those exploits involve you installing an app
> that takes advantage of a bug in the OS to jailbreak the system, or
> visiting a web site with a vulnerable browser, etc.  What all these have

For any version of iOS the earliest jailbreaks usually work in one of
two ways.

The first is a tethered jailbreak. This entails tricking the device into
booting from a host computer over USB or Lightning cable. It's called a
tethered jailbreak for what should be obvious reasons.

The second entails starting the device in recovery mode and tricking it
into permitting write access to the protected boot loader and OS
storage. Then a custom loader with the signature checks disabled is
written and a custom OS is installed.

Once jailbroken in either of these ways a command shell can be started
on the device. From here one can, for example, run a little program that
writes 0 to the unlock retry counter every time it is incremented.

All without touching the lock screen.


> I can't really say that it's been entertaining watching you parade your
> opinions around as facts (e.g. what constitutes 'interference'), but to
> each his own.

I'm merely referencing the GPL itself, the FSF's FAQ list, and RMS's
stated philosophy of not restricting the use of software and devices
containing software. I can't help it if you disagree with those but I
would suggest endeavoring to better understand your license of choice
before defending it and using it for your software.


> What /is/ amusing is that your bait to start this whole thing was
> misinformed to begin with.  The DCMA already specifically exempts law
> enforcement (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 ; Section
> 1201(e)):

I addressed this in my response to Mike.

-- 
Rich P.