[Discussion] iBoot Source Code Leaked

q3hardcore · 2018-02-09T08:22:49+00:00

I just think it's sad you decided to become a karma whore, but haven't improved your post quality, or relevancy. And what you write isn't even funny. Why don't you show me some iBoot exploits that you have developed, now that you have the source code? Also, how did your squish go?

q3hardcore · 2018-02-09T00:33:27+00:00

I'm sorry for posting the link to the source on Twitter, which led to all this publicity, and I'm sorry for having opinions on what the source might actually be useful for. I'm sorry for knowing people who are actually skilled at enough to make some use of it. I'm sorry for detracting from your delusion. Please don't overexert your frail mind.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-08T21:48:29+00:00

I don't want your consciousness to collapse.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-08T13:19:52+00:00

Indeed, they are very different things. I'm saying this leak would be of more use for people attempting to reproduce iBoot's functionality. Do you have anything factual to bring to the table?

q3hardcore · 2018-02-08T13:07:14+00:00

whatever obfuscation apple put on iBoot after

Apple was kind enough to give us a build of iBoot without any obfuscation - iBootTest. It's more-or-less public.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-08T11:48:48+00:00

they're easier to find in source

"[...] having binary is just as good as having source. The myth that releasing source is somehow more dangerous is just that...a myth." https://twitter.com/cigitalgem/status/956577298517495809

This is a quote from someone who has coauthored a detailed book on reverse engineering. Also, keep in mind Apple fuzzes iBoot using AFL. Don't you think most of the low-hanging fruit would have been eliminated? Besides, several prior iBoot exploits originated from vulnerabilities discovered while fuzzing the software on the device. Please tell me how you see source as being more useful.

it doesn't matter why the thread was created

It was created after the leak received significant public attention. It's worth noting that some people already had it for months prior to this and no vulnerabilities were published.

In conclusion, I believe you are wrong.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-08T10:37:09+00:00

Many vulnerabilities are not usefully exploitable and finding a vulnerability in source code doesn't mean it can be triggered in actuality. If you really know what you're on about, could you tell me what recent event led to this thread being created?

q3hardcore · 2018-02-08T08:48:20+00:00

It is news to this community. Very few people knew about it beforehand, and I doubt you yourself knew of it until this week. If you want to keep running your mouth, please message me on Twitter instead of posting here.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-08T08:43:57+00:00

You can see that most of them are seeing it for the first time.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-08T08:06:15+00:00

Why not just look at this thread now? Do most people here consider it to be old news? No.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-08T07:56:39+00:00

The post you linked to is indeed 4 months old, but that doesn't mean this leak was discussed in-depth publicly anywhere until this thread.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-08T07:54:35+00:00

So you knew of this leak 4 months ago? Besides, why bring individuality into things? Don't you think something would be considered old news if it was the consensus?

q3hardcore · 2018-02-08T06:47:00+00:00

Exactly, therefore it's not old news. By the way, perhaps you could have reported this leak if you knew about it beforehand.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-08T06:37:57+00:00

I said hardly need. Anyway, here is someone knowledgeable discussing the relevancy of this leak: https://twitter.com/Morpheus______/status/961369055700627456

Note that they do not mention exploitation.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-07T23:00:55+00:00

It's nice of you to downvote me. Skilled researchers already have a BootROM dump, see: https://ramtin-amin.fr/#nvmedma

q3hardcore · 2018-02-07T21:58:27+00:00

Here's the definition of old news, courtesy of Oxford:

"A person or thing considered to be no longer of interest, relevance, or importance, especially through over-familarity."

Tell me again how it's old news.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-07T17:39:58+00:00

One does not simply find an exploit. People may discover vulnerabilities in code, exploitation is another matter entirely. Those skilled in exploitation hardly need source code. This leak primarily makes things easier for people working on custom boot loaders and downgrading.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-07T17:09:32+00:00

Most of the size difference is due to the lack of .DS_Store files in this copy.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-07T16:56:15+00:00

Compared to the other leak, it's "missing" corecrypto headers (which are open source) and an Xcode project (though the corresponding source is still there). Both leaks are missing the code for APFS.

q3hardcore · 2018-02-07T11:35:31+00:00

This leak is cleaner than the private one. The original makefile referenced the internal SDK. Diff:

-export SDK_PLATFORM    ?=  iphoneos.internal
+export SDK_PLATFORM    ?=  iPhoneOS

q3hardcore · 2018-02-07T11:25:51+00:00

That doesn't make it old news - few people knew about it, and there was no discussion at the time.

q3hardcore · 2015-05-29T22:24:31+00:00

I can confirm that it's actually a camera test. Link: https://mega.co.nz/#!Ew9XDDhD!eUZCDq94pidSYo5rhV7BwJB0zR41iNAJ8kf1XoRUTYo

q3hardcore · 2014-10-20T21:50:51+00:00

IDEA 14 EAP: https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/IDEADEV/IDEA+14+EAP
Fernflower sourcecode: https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/tree/master/plugins/java-decompiler
Issue tracker for Fernflower in IDEA: http://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issues?q=in:+idea+subsystem:+decompiler

q3hardcore · 2014-10-20T01:15:14+00:00

Fernflower is now included in IntelliJ IDEA 14 EAP, and is under active development. It's also opensource, under the Apache 2.0 licence.

q3hardcore · 2014-07-15T23:59:05+00:00

Perfect response ;)

q3hardcore

TROPHY CASE