MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

What would be the scenario where a kill switch would be necessary? Just curious?

Aug 11, 08 - 04:50 pm Comment from: MacDailyNews Webmaster

wings2Sky,

A stalker accessing GPS to find their target's location, for just one example.

Aug 11, 08 - 04:53 pm Comment from: Jubei

Did he hit the wrong button? MobileMe is down again, so maybe the wrong switch got thrown.

Or a wife or girlfriend trying to find which strip joint you're passed out in after you bought tequila shots all night with the money you got from pawning her engagement ring. You should at least get a twenty minute head start.

I must say I don't know enough about this to really be totally against this type of ability in the OS, but it still seems a bit "Big Brother-ish" that a company could yank or alter an application on a computing device post-purchase.

Maybe I'm wrong, but there's nothing like this on a desktop or notebook computer, is there?

I think it'd bother people if there was. I suppose software updates sort of count, but those seem much more voluntary than this.

I can see it where they missed testing some software that did "bad" things and they needed to make sure every iPhone out there stopped the software in its tracks.

Aug 11, 08 - 04:57 pm Comment from: Ampar

"What would be the scenario where a kill switch would be necessary?"

When you're about to beat Steve Jobs' high score in JirboBreak.

So by his own logic, is Mr. Jobs being "irresponsible" by not shipping Macbooks with a "kill switch"?

Aug 11, 08 - 05:03 pm Comment from: Cubert

Let's not forget about the kill switch every iPhone owner has implanted into their brain when they buy an one. Steve-O doesn't like dissenters.

@Cubert

whaddya mean? i ain't got no Apple implanted kill switch in my he.... urp! (body drops to the floor with a resounding thud)

Growl,

Unlike iPhones, MacBooks do not come with built-in GPS.

Therefore the answer to your question is "no."

I could think of any number of reasons for a kill switch, including programs that gathered and sent out your financial information, programs that used your phone's processor to send out spam advertising, programs that stole minutes of your service and made them available to someone else, or programs that gathered information on phone calls you made.

Aug 11, 08 - 05:17 pm Comment from: MrScrith

I think the kill switch is also needed from a liability standpoint, since Apple is in charge of distribution and handling the purchase of the app I'm sure someone will try to go after Apple for a malicious app doing something to their iPhone, contacts, minutes, etc. Being able to take down apps that violate privacy, etc. will probably prevent a lot of lawsuits:

"this app you sold me did X"

response "As soon as we discovered the problem we sent out a kill command to prevent the app from doing this to anyone else, removed it from our store, revoked the license key for the developer, and stopped payment for the purchases of this app".

Judge: "Apple followed due diligence and corrected the problem as soon as it was found, class action status denied, etc."

"would allow Apple to block access to Core Location (GPS) for misbehaving apps"

So much for using the iPhone as the brains for a guided cruise missile then.

"A stalker accessing GPS to find their target's location, for just one example."

So somehow they're going to sign up for the developer program and create and upload the StalkMe trojan tip calculator application to the application store, and get their specific victim to download it from among the hundreds of apps? And then claim innocence when caught despite a trail which leads right to them?

Sounds like a fairly dumb stalker with way too much time on their hands choosing a very complicated way to solve a simple problem.

Now Apple killing apps they don't like? We've seen that already. The risk of Apple's abuse of the kill switch would seem to outweigh any benefit.

Not to mention that without background application support, the StalkMe trojan only works when you run it so is of very limited usefulness.

I think Jobs talked about a real kill switch. Core Location Blacklist only blocks untrusted apps from accessing Core Location, but in theory they may still function. So, malwares may be prevented from snooping where you've been, but they still can do other damages. What Jobs said is a lever to kill malicious applications like trojan horses/viruses that manage to escape Apple's detection and get sold at the App Store. The kill switch will prevent those malwares from running.

People make a big deal out of this kill switch, but as long as Apple does not abuse the kill switch, it's a good thing to have. People cannot always check everything, especially not a closed source app. So, when they trust the App Store, sometimes they don't know what they get. For this trust, Apple must have a way to protect end users, hence, a kill switch. It is also in Apple's interest to never abuse this kill switch since Apple needs the goodwill of third party developers and end users.

Think more along the lines of downloading.... let's say a password app. What if the developer wanted to send info back to himself and had buried the code to do so. If a trojan finds it's way out there, we will want it dead. Really we would want Apple to find it before it finds it's way out there, but just in case. Or a program that makes your phone a zombie, spamming for money.
Either of these would be very bad press. I worry about developer updates squeezing in their code, piecemeal, it all looks innocent until update 3 or 4 and BAM, it's real intention becomes active.
But then again I do hear voices in the dark. : )

"For this trust, Apple must have a way to protect end users, hence, a kill switch. "

And since their motives are not in any way underhanded, I'm sure the kill switch capability was something Apple intended to widely disclose so that trustful consumers could bask in that warm glow of anticipated Apple protection of their iPhones, knowing that the phones didn't have any secret big brotherish features embedded within.

"If a trojan finds it's way out there, we will want it dead. Really we would want Apple to find it before it finds it's way out there, but just in case. Or a program that makes your phone a zombie, spamming for money. "

As has often been said, OS X is immune to all malware, and the iPhone runs OS X.

Therefore the Kill Switch cannot possibly be targeted at malware because writing OS X malware is impossible.

I just wish that instead of exotic pointless boondoggles, Apple would get back to providing quality and common sense to its customers first and above all else.

Killswitch indeed.
The only reason this is here is just in case AT&T;decides they don't like a specific application.

Aug 11, 08 - 06:01 pm Comment from: HMCIV

They're waiting for the day when Michael Dell and the NBC executive office to simultaneously touch an iphone. Then they'll hit the iphone "kill switch".

(I wouldn't recommend keeping your iPhone in your pants on that particular day. )

And I say this as I sit here watching the wheel spin while waiting for my mobile me mail.

Candy Cane Forests: And since their motives are not in any way underhanded, I'm sure the kill switch capability was something Apple intended to widely disclose so that trustful consumers could bask in that warm glow of anticipated Apple protection of their iPhones, knowing that the phones didn't have any secret big brotherish features embedded within.

I am not Steve Jobs. You aren't either. Neither of us knows the motivation, so trying to imply that Apple's motive is underhanded is a strawman argument just like your sarcasm as an argument is unwarranted. If you've got any proof that Apple is pulling a Big Brother for its own interest, post it here and I'll agree with you. Whether the existence of the kill switch should be disclosed widely or not is irrelevant except to be used as a FUD argument. Jobs acknowledged its existence. That's enough; he doesn't need to advertise it.

"Steve Jobs, Apple's chief executive, has confirmed there is a 'kill switch' built into the iPhone [operating system] that allows Apple to remotely delete malicious or inappropriate applications stored on the device,"

IOW, Apple can secretly & arbitrarily kill any app on anyone's iPhone. Even apps the user may have paid for.

Really, what's worse: the prospect of a runaway malicious app, or Steve leaning on the nuke button ready to shut down anything at his whim?

If MS did this we'd be screaming Big Brother. Yet it's OK in Apple hands?

What happens when government agencies are also allowed to nose and nuke things they don't like?

Aug 11, 08 - 06:18 pm Comment from: Predrag

It has been exactly one month since the iPhone 3G came out. The CEO of Apple publicly stated that the phone has this so-called "Kill Switch". I am having a hard time trying to figure out how can this now be underhanded? Were they supposed to spend $10 million on an advertising campaign educating consumers about this "Kill Switch"? What would have been transparent enough a move?

Just as people click on links promising free home video of Paris Hilton, they'll be downloadning a free application that does something everyone wants ("Free copy/paste function for your iPhone!"). Between hundreds of Apps that go through Apple's approval process, a malicious code could easily sneak under the cloak of a useful "Copy/Paste" utility. You may use your imagination to come up with the variety of bad things such an app could do (many already mentioned above).

Civil libertarians would do well to climb down from their high horse here, since Big Brother this is absolutely not. Remember, you, as an iPhone owner, are Apple's customer. If you have any experience with Apple's customer service, you should know that they will always bend over backwards for the consumer.

If an app is ever killed on your iPhone remotely, you may safely bet your right arm that Apple will make things right for you. They will refund the money and explain why the app was yanked, or restore the App (or provide you with a link to re-download it for free), if their decision was a bad one (like the $1k "I Am Rich" situation). You will not be treated like a Dell customer, that's for sure.

Aug 11, 08 - 06:22 pm Comment from: JAYGEE

Killswitch Engage is a great band! ROCK ON!

On a serious note, I thought Apple are meant to check out all the Aps before adding them to the App store. Why add an App that is not suitable, they remove it later? Why don't they just not add it to the App store in the first place?

Aug 11, 08 - 06:23 pm Comment from: Anonymous©

When you're playing Global Thermonuclear War, you need a kill switch.

JAYGEE
they probably didn't think of that...

Aug 11, 08 - 06:39 pm Comment from: El Guapo

What a program like NetShare or BoxOffice? Could/would Apple yank them from the phones of people that were fortunate enough to download before they were pulled from the App Store?

Aug 11, 08 - 07:20 pm Comment from: El Guapo

Oops!

That should say, "What about a program like..."

It was a rough 1st day back at school!

As always with Apple, you can compute any way you like...so long as it's Steve Jobs' way. Drink deeply from the well of Cupertino Kool-Aid.

"Drink deeply from the well of Cupertino Kool-Aid."

I applaud your originality. Are you still wowing party guests with your explanations of the history of DLL errors? You must be very popular.

Aug 11, 08 - 08:12 pm Comment from: Sir Gill Bates

That plastic back that replaced the metal version?

Plastic explosives baby. DO NOT piss off the Stevester.

I'd like to know what can happen if/when the hacker community finds a way to access that kill switch themselves. Random deletion of my apps and data?

Aug 11, 08 - 09:45 pm Comment from: Sixvodkas

Kill switch swill switch....

Just as long as Apple issues my card a REBATE for whenever they elect to delete an App that I've already PAID FOR... I'll not seek Class Action Status in the following Lawsuits

A Kill switch is a very smart idea, it is possible someone makes a virus and some how gets it onto the phone (not likely, but surely possible) - from there as soon as Apple finds it, the can kill the virus... Quite smart indeed.

All you guys are so damn unbelievably paranoid, it's ridiculous!

It's like you're living in a country with a juvenile and useless president who tortures people, spies on citizens and attacks other countries for no good reason!

I mean...wait. Oh, ok.

Aug 11, 08 - 10:41 pm Comment from: BC Kelly

Ok, you got my interest in this Topic, did some quick digging, and found this - very interesting:


http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/07/kill_switches_a.html


Opening below, follow above link for entire post ... BC




Kill Switches and Remote Control

It used to be that just the entertainment industries wanted to control your computers -- and televisions and iPods and everything else -- to ensure that you didn't violate any copyright rules. But now everyone else wants to get their hooks into your gear.

OnStar will soon include the ability for the police to shut off your engine remotely. Buses are getting the same capability, in case terrorists want to re-enact the movie Speed. The Pentagon wants a kill switch installed on airplanes, and is worried about potential enemies installing kill switches on their own equipment.

Microsoft is doing some of the most creative thinking along these lines, with something it's calling "Digital Manners Policies."

According to its patent application, DMP-enabled devices would accept broadcast "orders" limiting their capabilities. Cellphones could be remotely set to vibrate mode in restaurants and concert halls, and be turned off on airplanes and in hospitals. Cameras could be prohibited from taking pictures in locker rooms and museums, and recording equipment could be disabled in theaters. Professors finally could prevent students from texting one another during class.

The possibilities are endless, and very dangerous ...

Aug 11, 08 - 11:03 pm Comment from: Always Right

I'd like to see a kill switch for George Bush.

I still don't quite get it. Most of the arguments/scenarios above apply to most computer apps for the Mac as well as the iPhone. The only thing unique about the iPhone is that it has GPS and it is a phone and that it transmits data over the AT&T;network, maybe?
There still must be something I am missing (no jokes, please ).

Aug 11, 08 - 11:25 pm Comment from: iDon't

Does it kill porn?

Aug 11, 08 - 11:49 pm Comment from: TheConfuzed1

@ Cubert--

Does your Apple branded laptop feature a GPS chip?

I know mine doesn't...

"Were they supposed to spend $10 million on an advertising campaign educating consumers about this "Kill Switch"? What would have been transparent enough a move?"

No, but if they weren't trying to hide it, at least it'd be in the SDK documentation.

There's lots of ways to provide the iPhone antivirus/antimalware features you seek (Yes, that's what the kill switch is, if used for good) without hiding it from developers and the customer.

But if the purpose was to kill arbitrary apps because Steve just doesn't like them, it'd be a good idea to keep it secret as long as possible.

Apple shouldn't be in the business of deciding what an "inappropriate" application is. That's a weasel word which lets them ban just about anything they feel like.

Why this title partially in french? Especially after having cursed Frenchies not to have entered G.W.Bush's plot of September 11?
Are suddenly eyes getting opened?

Steve Jobs is a control freak. To the core. If M$ did this the whole world would be screaming bloody murder.

But having said that, the idea of Apple having the ability to kill an App that turns out to be a trojan is not such a bad idea. Maybe something like this in all desktops/laptops might put the pinch on virus/trojan/malware writers.

Aug 12, 08 - 03:08 am Comment from: MacSmiley

I wish Steve hadn't used the "kill switch" on Apple iCards!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/macsmiley/2652541101/

"Maybe something like this in all desktops/laptops might put the pinch on virus/trojan/malware writers."

It's called the Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool and runs every month on your PC if you have automated updates turned on. Unlike Apple, Microsoft documents what it is and how it works, and it can be turned off if you don't want it.

Aug 12, 08 - 05:39 am Comment from: British Mac Head

Well I for one think this is a great idea as long as it isn't abused.

What if someone did write a seemingly benign app that actually sent back your name, mobile number and exact GPS location on demand to a third party? Then that App was used to locate someone. Maybe something along the lines of the "I am rich" app being used to locate and kidnap rich people for ransom or something equally dodgy.

Maybe it could be used to send a report of the whereabouts every 5 minutes to a boss about their employee for a fee. Spying on people is a bad thing. No matter what they may be doing and I believe that App should be pulled if it slipped through. So a kill switch for Core Location access to an Application is a good idea.

And one for killing malicious or trojan type apps off altogether is also good. However I would expect Apple to post a note as to why it was killed off and who we can press charges against.

And to the guy who is saying there is no OSX Malware. A trojan classed as malware however it is a normal Application, installed by the user (usually with a password) that does things other than what is stated on the tin! For example. A keystroke logger.

Basically something with a hidden immoral or illegal purpose. That's why I never install anything that is designed to store my bank or credit card details. Who's to say they don't get sent back to a third party. Maybe they don't and maybe Apple test thoroughly for that but that type of malware has nothing to do with how secure a computer is and everything to do with how gullible or over trusting a user might be.

As far as I can see most Mac users are a little bit more discerning than the average Windows user because they actually made a conscious choice what computer/OS to buy after weighing up all the choices.

Now what Apple does with this kill switch is where the wisdom comes in. But as long as it's there to protect the users from dross and scumbags then I'm all for it.

Aug 12, 08 - 06:29 am Comment from: Cubert

@TheConfuzed1,

"Does your Apple branded laptop feature a GPS chip?"

It just may. It just may.