Martin Hill

The Downside to iPhone Success

Damn, not sure why I got the duplicate posts above.

As far as your second response is concerned:

“Well, for my idea to be impossible, it seems at least one of the following have to be true:
1. Apple is perfect and never allows anything *that could be susceptible to* a virus get through its store.”

Scott, even if a malware author registered all their vital details with Apple (including financial information), paid their $99 entry fee, was approved by Apple into the iPhone developer program and then managed to get an app approved into the App Store that had undetectable malware hidden inside - as soon as it was discovered, Apple would flick the Kill Switch and bam, the app would be neutralised on every iPhone in the world.

“2. No iPhone ever accesses any content from any other iPhone or the Internet that might be used to infect a susceptible app or phone.”

Ah, but the sandboxed security model of the iPhone means no apps can be downloaded to the iPhone from the web or another iPhone and run without being securely signed by Apple through the App Store. Even social engineering won’t allow users to download any old app from the internet or another iPhone and run it - unlike a PC or Mac, or a Windows Mobile, Palm, Nokia or Android phone. (jailbroken iPhones are such a small percentage of the total that they do not count)

The easy infection vectors are just not available on the iPhone unlike virtually every other platform making it far more difficult for malware to survive let alone flourish.

-Mart

The Downside to iPhone Success

Scott, no need to jump to the "attack of the fanboys" defense.

Your argument that "the most widespread iPhone application in 2009 will be a virus" is so patently impossible it does not take a fanboy to realise this.

Apple's central global remote "kill switch" capability combined with tight control over what programs are approved in the App Store as well as mandatory secure app certificate-signing and the iPhone's automatic app update notification mechanism makes it virtually impossible for a virus to even get out of the starting gate let alone replicate amongst a helpless public.

www.ipodobserver.com/s...

www.appleinsider.com/a...

In contrast Windows Mobile which lacks all of these security mechanisms already suffers from quite a number of viruses and trojans as does Symbian and Palm and it looks like Google's Android will suffer the same fate. With a wide-open distribution model without any editorial control and with the ability for users to easily get apps from sources other than Google's marketplace it looks like it will be Android following in Windows virus-ridden footsteps (160,000 viruses and counting) not the iPhone.

In the interests of responsible journalism, would you please post a retraction of this inaccurate article? Thanks!

-Mart

The Downside to iPhone Success

Scott, no need to jump to the "attack of the fanboys" defense.

Your argument that "the most widespread iPhone application in 2009 will be a virus" is so patently impossible it does not take a fanboy to realise this.

Apple's central global remote "kill switch" capability combined with tight control over what programs are approved in the App Store as well as mandatory secure app certificate-signing and the iPhone's automatic app update notification mechanism makes it virtually impossible for a virus to even get out of the starting gate let alone replicate amongst a helpless public.

www.ipodobserver.com/s...

www.appleinsider.com/a...

In contrast Windows Mobile which lacks all of these security mechanisms already suffers from quite a number of viruses and trojans as does Symbian and Palm and it looks like Google's Android will suffer the same fate. With a wide-open distribution model without any editorial control and with the ability for users to easily get apps from sources other than Google's marketplace it looks like it will be Android following in Windows virus-ridden footsteps (160,000 viruses and counting) not the iPhone.

In the interests of responsible journalism, would you please post a retraction of this inaccurate article? Thanks!

-Mart