NEWS: iPhone anti-malware stuck in state of denial. Not needed, says Apple. Won't run, say developers.
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: Setting a different IP address for each access point
Next: NEWS: iPhone anti-malware stuck in state of denial. Not needed,says Apple. Won't run, say developers.
From: nospam on 3 Dec 2009 22:16 In article <Xns9CD6DE3175FD4noonehomecom(a)74.209.131.13>, Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote: > The one they sold you that steals your contacts list data they took off the > app store because it did that.....but didn't give you your money back > because you still have it installed and working. as i recall, that app used the contacts list to find other players, not collect names and addresses, so it's not as evil as it might seem. the developer updated it to not do that and then the app was reinstated.
From: John Navas on 5 Dec 2009 00:22 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:30:26 -0700, David Moyer <davmoy(a)world.com> wrote in <4b0ebb32$0$87073$815e3792(a)news.qwest.net>: >John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones. > >yes, there is never a need for that on iphones since all developers have >signed contracts disallowing that type of behavior, they'd be liable and >sued into oblivion. plus they are all unix based phones so nothing can >spread unless a default password/username was known. No offense, but that's dangerously naive. -- Best regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> If the iPhone is really so impressive, why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
From: nospam on 5 Dec 2009 01:15
In article <8frjh5d93ta9cnugbm0ob4o6mrb728l9nm(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:30:26 -0700, David Moyer <davmoy(a)world.com> wrote > in <4b0ebb32$0$87073$815e3792(a)news.qwest.net>: > > >John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > > >> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones. > > > >yes, there is never a need for that on iphones since all developers have > >signed contracts disallowing that type of behavior, they'd be liable and > >sued into oblivion. plus they are all unix based phones so nothing can > >spread unless a default password/username was known. > > No offense, but that's dangerously naive. not really, although what he wrote is not entirely correct. unless the iphone is jailbroken, it's *very* difficult to get non-approved code to run, let alone spread. |