Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Unable to Update (Score 1) 473

by my_breath_smells (#37694826) Attached to: iOS 5 Update Available

Might not be your specific issue but if you've installed any of the jailbreak tools, your hosts file might have been modified so that the update won't validate against Apple's server.

Fixing your hosts file is left as an exercise for the reader – obviously if you play the jailbreak game you're savvy enough to repair the hosts file.

Encryption

+ - $100K Decryption Challenge->

Submitted by my_breath_smells
my_breath_smells (762618) writes "In what appears to be an attempt to raise awareness of their new business, a group from Calgary, Alberta has put up a $100,000 USD bounty on the decryption of a message.

Choice quote: "The combination of code and encryption logic renders the
secured object impenetrable to hacking and phishing."

It remains to be seen how this one-time-pad encrypted message is related to phishing..."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:RAM, ipad (Score 5, Informative) 983

by my_breath_smells (#31783588) Attached to: iPhone OS 4.0 Brings Multitasking, Ad Framework For Apps

RAM is cheap, and there's no lack of space inside the ipad for an extra chip.

The iPad's A4 processor has the RAM inside the A4 package using package-on-package technology. Perhaps the RAM inside the A4 could have been a higher density, but space inside the iPad is not relevant.

Integrating the RAM minimizes the pinout of the A4 and may have allowed them to avoid a difficult-to-breakout BGA pitch. (Changing from a 0.5mm to 0.4mm pitch allows more pins but complicates PCB routing and PCB expense.) I can't tell from this shot of the A4 what pitch is used, but the pin count is pretty high. Note: You need the blank areas in order to breakout traces and place vias.

Comment: Re:Spotty 3G on T-Mobile? (Score 1) 146

by my_breath_smells (#30756278) Attached to: Nexus One Owners Report Spotty 3G Signals On T-Mobile

Patches from clients for cell firmware end up going into a separate tree for that specific client and are not typically propagated back upstream to the baseline, so every phone manufacturer who develops a phone using any given chipset ends up having to find and fix the same set of hundreds of baseband bugs over and over. If that's true, I'm amazed that the cell manufacturers put up with it. That certainly explains why cell phones have so many hundreds (or thousands) of baseband crasher bugs, and it also probably explains why Google is having to relearn all the stuff that Apple just learned a few months ago, and probably Nokia learned a few months before that, and so on.

This is precisely why Apple will never make a CDMA iPhone for Verizon using a Qualcomm chipset. The baseband firmware workload for maintaining fixes for two different chipset vendor's code bases is not justifiable. Apple chose Infineon for their chipset, and I expect their product roadmaps to remain closely aligned regardless of Qualcomm's offerings.

Apple makes a very limited number of hardware SKUs that can be sold worldwide. Don't expect them to offer variants for specific markets.

That, and Apple HATES Verizon.

Comment: Re:Lying like dogs... (Score 1) 495

by my_breath_smells (#28875241) Attached to: Apple Says iPhone Jailbreaking Could Hurt Cell Towers
You have the code to the app-side of the OpenMoko - the Linux side. Do you have the code to the radio stack? The code to access and manipulate the calibration parameters, change RF chipset behaviour, manipulate handoff. Can you add new custom AT commands to the stack? Or are you just interfacing with the radio firmware via AT?

That is, is the Calypso Moko FW open source?

http://people.openmoko.org/joerg/calypso_moko_FW/all_version__CHANGELOG.txt

Jailbreaking is the gateway to the real danger of modifying the baseband radio binaries (not apps-processor). In and of itself, I agree that just jailbreaking won't affect the cellular network.

Post-jailbreak modification of the baseband firmware is what is happening when you unlock an iPhone. This modification invalidates the FCC, CE, GCF and PTCRB certifications of the phone. It has the potential to increase support costs and negatively impact network operation.

Its not analogous to using an IP Sockets API to crash your router. Its like modifying the firmware of your router's PHY and then calling customer support because your network is down.

Comment: Re:Lying like dogs... (Score 1) 495

by my_breath_smells (#28869367) Attached to: Apple Says iPhone Jailbreaking Could Hurt Cell Towers
Please understand that the source code to the GSM modem that you don't have access to, is precisely the portion of the iPhone firmware that is being manipulated by the carrier unlock procedure (but afaik not the jailbreak procedure). Jailbreaking, however, is the gateway to the unlock process â" hence the concern about prohibiting Jailbreak.

Every version of modem/phone baseband firmware must pass significant interoperability and carrier approval test suites before it can be sold or distributed. Why? Because cell networks are heterogeneous amalgamations of multiple vendors handsets, basestation equipment, and firmware versions for each. Think its annoying when a cheap WiFi router doesn't interop well with your existing devices? Is it WiFi certified? Now imagine being a network operator when potentially rogue firmware versions randomly take down portions of your billion dollar network...

Should the unlock process accidentally or otherwise modify the modem/phone calibration or call-handling procedures, the network can be impacted. The cell network stability is dependent on all handsets following the same rules â" one misbehaving handset can affect the rest of the cell... Imagine having your call dropped because someone running an unlocked iPhone did a handoff to your cell...

e.g. One early iPhone unlock procedure caused every unlocked device to have the same IMEI â" an identifer which should be unique in the world. This can cause network (and billing) issues analogous to multiple Ethernet devices with the same MAC address.

Thus Apple's concern about unlocking (which required jailbreaking) may be motivated by customer support concerns.

Should poorly unlocked iPhones accidentally start affecting cell basestations (perhaps only one manufacturer's basestation), Apple will be faced with customer support calls for firmware that didn't pass the standard certification processes, the network operator will be faced with customer support calls, and immense finger-pointing will ensue (between the network operator, Apple, customers, and basestation manufacturers). Reputations will be tarnished and Apple's customer support costs will jump, even though the Apple QA'd firmware does not have the same defects as the hacked firmware. Revenue and expenses will be impacted.

Stepping back and looking at the economic motivations, Apple often makes decisions based on the desire to minimize costs â" customer support costs.

(this also ignores lost App Store revenue, carrier kickbacks, etc. from jailbroken and unlocked iPhones)

I'm all for the freedom of unlocked and jailbroken iPhones, but accusing Apple of trying to maintain a closed system just because they're jerks is ignorant of the processes in place to ensure network stability and a positive user experience by all cell phone users.

(No, I'm not accusing the iPhoneDevTeam of maliciously attempting to release poorly-hacked firmware, but given the earlier IMEI fiasco, it IS possible. I expect we all believe in QA processes, and I doubt the DevTeam has access to a Spirent Its way outside their budget. )

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Working...