You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
26 points

Isn’t it funny that every tech commenter was like “Apple would have to re-engineer their whole iMessage stack if they want to cut off access to Beeper Mini”?

permalink
report
reply
6 points
*

The thing with this service is, if I understand it correctly, that they were using someone else’s device ID to send messages.

So, say for example that someone started using my Mac Mini’s ID (my Mac being located in Madrid, Spain) to send iMessages in the US….

People expected Apple not noticing it?

It worked when it was some hacker’s project because at that time, a few stolen Apple device IDs didn’t raise too many red flags. But at a large scale, and used by a company, it may be easy for Apple to detect.

And don’t be fooled: the system worked by stealing someone else’s legitimate device ID, and pose as it to send messages to the system. So, this company could be making money by using you Apple device ID. I’m not ok with that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Beeper mini still needed a device serial for it to register with apple’s serial which makes it easy for Apple to see a swath of fake device serials being registered.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I was under the impression that interaction with Apple’s servers required some kind of “proof” (honor system really) that you’re using an Apple device, which used device ID that was spoofed; just like how Hackintosh had done for push notifications for years.

Worth noting that Hackintosh got to a point where someone wrote scripts to generate random strings to brute force until they encounter a valid device ID, so they’d literally assume someone else’s legitimate device to get push notifications.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points
*

That would seem to imply that tech commenters know less than Apple about Apple’s own servers. Shocking.

My bet is that is if Apple comments at all, they will talk about closing a security vulnerability rather than cutting off android users.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

My bet is that is Apple comments at all, they will talk about closing a security vulnerability rather than cutting off android users.

Aaaand you were right!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

And the founders quote is hilarious.

“if Apple truly cares about the privacy and security of their own iPhone users, why would they stop a service that enables their own users to now send encrypted messages to Android users, rather than using unsecure SMS?”

One of these things are their own iPhone users. One of them is not.

Swoosh.

If you want security, stay in the Apple ecosystem and you don’t need to send to insecure android users.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

@EliasChao @apple_enthusiast That’s essentially the same thing, LMAO.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-34 points

You would have be dumb enough to buy apple products to believe that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Ah the voice of immaturity and inexperience speaks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Why would Apple have to reverse engineer their own protocol?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Re- not reverse-engineer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

D’oh. Shouldn’t have commented before getting out of bed.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Apple

!apple_enthusiast@lemmy.world

Create post
Welcome

to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!

Rules:
  1. No NSFW Content
  2. No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
  3. No Ads / Spamming
    Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread

Lemmy Code of Conduct

Communities of Interest:

Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple

Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode

Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.

Community stats

  • 2.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.3K

    Posts

  • 19K

    Comments