jailbreak ios7 was developed by a previously-unknown Chinese haX0r group
Code for Pangu jailbreak was stolen from a well-known iOS hacker and security researcher i0n1c/Stefan Esser:
Here's the actual analysis of malware:
https://www.lacoon.com/lacoon-...
The iOS device needs to be jailbroken in order to be infected. Then with Cydia installed, the repository would be need to be added and then the package could be installed. All thatâ(TM)s known is that both the iOS and Android attacks share a CnC server.
Good points on pricing! But like I mentioned, advertising is bringing in a lot of funds as well. Bandwidth is cheaper than ever these days and a lot of it is "subsidized" by Cloudflare which don't charge for bandwidth. 4chan also doesn't run on AWS/VMs (you can find pics of 4chan servers on 4chan blog). And we can tell how much Cloudflare costs: http://www.cloudflare.com/plan...
So I still don't see why, after all this revenue, the site would be unprofitable. It's not like moot has a large dev team behind it.
Recent hack, the one that has prompted this change in policy and security issues reward process, revealed that 4chan sold about 12740 passes this year. At the price of $20 per pass, that's about $254,800 so far. And there's also a lot of revenue coming in from advertising.
If 4chan was truly unprofitable, it would have closed years ago. Seems to me that this is just an image that the owner is trying to project.
iWatch is not really a timepiece. It's a collection of highly sophisticated sensors that "watch" your vitals. All these other companies (Samsung etc) assumed that iWatch was just another smart watch: a watch with few apps on it. But from all the leaks and reports weâ(TM)ve seen so far (if they were to believed), iWatch is none of those things.
Yes, it will probably tell time as well but iWatch will be much more than that.
Here's what Michael Arrington, former editor of TechCrunch, says:
I have first hand knowledge of this. A few years ago, Iâ(TM)m nearly certain that Google accessed my Gmail account after I broke a major story about Google.
A couple of weeks after the story broke my source, a Google employee, approached me at a party in person in a very inebriated state and said that they (Iâ(TM)m being gender neutral here) had been asked by Google if they were the source. The source denied it, but was then shown an email that proved that they were the source.
The source had corresponded with me from a non Google email account, so the only way Google saw it was by accessing my Gmail account.
A little while after that my source was no longer employed by Google.
"But what we need to know is, do people want nasally-insertable computers?"