vB Easy Archive - Regarding the customized GeoBootloader...

Pages: 1

Regarding the customized GeoBootloader...
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Drakkhen

Hey guys,

I know I posted on another thread already, but I was affraid that it would get lost in the thread - I thought that it was important enough that I started a new thread.

I'm sitting here reading all the threads on Hackint0sh regarding how awesome a custom bootloader would be, and I got to thinking about what Apple's reactions might be to this.

***

I think many of us are aware of the custom bootloader that 'may' be coming - Hotz himself said that releasing it would be complicated because of legal issues and such...

Even if this is the case, what advantage would this new custom bootloader have over v3.9, which, for all intents and purposes, we have full control over?

On top of that, it would be MUCH easier for apple to segregate and differentiate between a hacked phone and a legit one in the future, and could very well help Apple in the long run.

Example: After this new bootloader catches on, Apple in their infinite wisdom decides to 'deactivate/kill/brick all phones that don't have BL3.9 or BL4.6' (essentially all custom bootloaders), all they would have to do is release a new baseband and firmware. Because there is no security on the custom bootloader, this is going to be simple as pie for them.

They can't do this right now because the userbase of 3.9 and 4.6 phones also consist of legit users. Personally, I think that making a separate bootloader may play right into Apple's hands, as hacked phones can no longer hide under the camouflage and security of the 'legit' userbase.

***

So that's my thoughts in terms of a high level architechtual, but non-technical standpoint. I really think sticking with the 3.9BL is the way to go.

L.

Posted by: richy240

Thanks for making that decision for us.

Don't you think the developers working on this BL have already considered this?

Posted by: Drakkhen

Of course they've thought of it. The problem is - it took a handful of 'developers' months (and by that, MANY) to exploit apple's 4.6BL. Do you really think it'll take Apple anywhere close to the same time, with their army of smart people (who know much more about their own hardware) to do the same right back?

Geo's bootloader, by design and by demand, will be less secure. Now, the only factor is if Apple wants to waste any resources doing so. If they lose enough AT&T contracts and are pressured in any way (legally or not), they will put resources towards this.

I made as much as a decision for everyone as you did in your original post - I am a developer, and this won't be the first time this type of thing has happened in the industry. I'm just speaking from experience.

L.

Posted by: richy240

I'm sure your experience is valuable. I'm not arguing that. And you've made valid points; I'm not arguing that either. I'm just saying let's not jump to conclusions.

I'm staying with 4.6 for the time being due to the known exploit, that way I have the flexibility of upgrading/downgrading/whatever when the time comes. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING!

Posted by: Reznor9

I would think there would be a virginizer script for something like this incase something like this were to come to reality.

Posted by: Drakkhen

Quote:

Originally Posted by richy240

I'm sure your experience is valuable. I'm not arguing that. And you've made valid points; I'm not arguing that either. I'm just saying let's not jump to conclusions.

I'm staying with 4.6 for the time being due to the known exploit, that way I have the flexibility of upgrading/downgrading/whatever when the time comes. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING!

That's cool, and all I'm saying is from an architectual and business stand point, as well as a compatibility and security standpoint, downgrading to BL3.9 is going to be a better option that using a hacked bootloader....

This needs to be discussed, and I think it's good that we're discussing it. I just wish that there were other people's opinions involved so that we can discuss further...!!!!

L.

Posted by: richy240

Ok, buf it 3.9 is already as wide open as you say it is, why make a custom BL in the first place? Surely they've also considered this...

Posted by: Drakkhen

Quote:

Originally Posted by richy240

Ok, buf it 3.9 is already as wide open as you say it is, why make a custom BL in the first place? Surely they've also considered this...

Honestly, I have no idea. I guess it really depends on what you want to do with the iPhone. There are a few schools of thought and usage I guess:

1) To use the iPhone as close as possible to spec, but be able to use it on another network

2) To use 3rd party software to extend the abilites of the iPhone to one that resembles more of a personal computer

3) ???

What, within the physical possibilites of the iPhone can a special bootloader offer that we can't do already? The hacked unit is so software driven that it seems like a hack at this level would really not be of any consequence.

The only thing that I can think of would possibly be for a permanent unlock, but we're pretty close to that with our software solution.

I really can't say.

L.

Posted by: GeeK.dLL

I think a custom BL would be the great hack to a iphone (of course im very technical) Also I think this thread shouldnt of been started in "iPhone Hacking and Unlocking" should be posted in "Apple forums"

Posted by: richy240

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeeK.dLL

Also I think this thread shouldnt of been started in "iPhone Hacking and Unlocking" should be posted in "Apple forums"

Uhh, why?...

Posted by: The Punisher

If we decided to change our bootloader to a custom one, Apple could never send down any upgrade that would purposely brick the phone because it has a modified BL. It would actually get them in legal trouble for purposely bricking phones that they don't own.

Remember you purchased this phone and therefore you have the right to do anything to it you please, if apple decides to damage it purposely then they are looking at possible legal action taken against them. The only thing they can do is overwrite the BL with a legit one during upgrade, but even then they still need to provide us with the choice of overwriting current BL or not.

A custom BL would be the same idea that we have with say Linksys routers, there a few custom firmwares out there and there is nothing wrong with it or illegal about it.

The only time you can't make custom changes, is when you actually don't own the equipment but instead rent it.

Posted by: Drakkhen

Same here....why? I think if Geohotz is referred to anywhere, it should be in this forum...

Posted by: Drakkhen

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Punisher

If we decided to change our bootloader to a custom one, Apple could never send down any upgrade that would purposely brick the phone because it has a modified BL. It would actually get them in legal trouble for purposely bricking phones that they don't own.

Remember you purchased this phone and therefore you have the right to do anything to it you please, if apple decides to damage it purposely then they are looking at possible legal action taken against them. The only thing they can do is overwrite the BL with a legit one during upgrade, but even then they still need to provide us with the choice of overwriting current BL or not.

A custom BL would be the same idea that we have with say Linksys routers, there a few custom firmwares out there and there is nothing wrong with it or illegal about it.

The only time you can't make custom changes, is when you actually don't own the equipment but instead rent it.

That is a very good point - However, in the US is it wrong for apple to assume that every iphone out there has an AT&T contract and EULA that would stipulate that you need to run the phone with AT&T? Apple could also just say "to fix your phone, you need to contact AT&T", who would happily sign you up with an iPhone account.

Microsoft makes hotfixes and patches all the time that 'unintentionally' break stuff all the time, and this stuff is often in autoupdate, or just a service pack that the user manually installs. Wouldn't a firmware update be the same thing as a SP?

L.

Posted by: richy240

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Punisher

Interesting point... Please continue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drakkhen

I agree with this, but since I'm not personally an AT&T customer (I got my AT&T SIM through my job) I don't have any sort of agreement with AT&T or Apple, except the EULA that came with the phone itself. I've already broken that, but whatever. My phone still works...