Direct Quote: "Every iPhone ever made is vulnerable" to still unpatched 0-day bugs (since the October 22nd 2010, iPhone 2G iOS 3.1.3)

For Alan Baker

unread,

May 11, 2020, 5:54:35 AM5/11/20

to

*Apple is up to their neck in 0-day vulnerabilities!*
o EVERY SINGLE IPHONE out there... apparently is vulnerable... today!

Every single one.
<https://blog.zecops.com/vulnerabilities/seeing-maildemons-technique-triggers-and-a-bounty/>
"the vulnerability and triggers... date all the way back to
October 22 2010 on an original 2G iPhone running iOS 3.1.3.
One thing is certain, there were triggers in the wild for
this vulnerability since 2010, the company explains."

o Certainly Apple has _never_ even once tested iOS sufficiently!
"Unfortunately, a patch is still not available"

All Apple really needs is MARKETING to declare iOS perfectly safe.
"not only is it being triggered in the wild, but that the first potential
triggers existed a decade ago and every iPhone ever made is vulnerable"

Proof iOS has _never_ been sufficiently tested just grows daily.
o *Apple iPhone Warning Now Affects All iPhone Users*, May 10th, 2020
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2020/05/10/apple-iphone-exploit-vulnerability-ios-13-mail-problem-update-iphone-11-pro-max-u-iphone-xs-max-xr-upgrade/>

Given Apple is dead last in R&D expenditures, why should Apple even bother
investing in R&D testing when MARKETING need only declare iOS safe and the
amazingly gullible (but stupid) iOS users believe Apple MARKETING bullshit.

Oh, and that part about Apple claiming the vulnerability wasn't exploited?
o Yea... Apple MARKETING/LEGAL simply just made that up. Again.
(How many times is Apple going to try this trick?)
(Like when Apple blamed _batteries_ for their _secret_ throttling!)
(Or when they blamed Google when Google proved Apple never tested iOS!)

Notice Apple _and_ apologists just make _everything_ up on the fly!
o Apple and Apple users don't need 'no stinking facts.

*Apologists' belief system & MARKETING claims - are purely imaginary*.

But what about iPhone 6 users?
o Nobody knows whether Apple gives a shit about them...

"the bigger question is whether Apple will release a patch for
previous iOS versions to protect older devices still in use.
After all, the iPhone 6 is the biggest selling iPhone in the
company's history"
--
Bringing simple TRUTH to Apple ngs via basic gentle application of fact.

Alan Baker

unread,

May 11, 2020, 12:17:30 PM5/11/20

to

On 2020-05-11 2:54 a.m., For Alan Baker wrote:
> *Apple is up to their neck in 0-day vulnerabilities!*

That's not a fact.

> o EVERY SINGLE IPHONE out there... apparently is vulnerable...
> today!
>
> Every single one.
> <https://blog.zecops.com/vulnerabilities/seeing-maildemons-technique-triggers-and-a-bounty/>
>
>
"the vulnerability and triggers... date all the way back to
> October 22 2010 on an original 2G iPhone running iOS 3.1.3. One thing
> is certain, there were triggers in the wild for this vulnerability
> since 2010, the company explains."

The text, "the vulnerability and triggers" doesn't appear at that link.

The text "october 22" doesn't appear.

The text "original" doesn't appear.

So where did you get this text?

The article also has no date

>
> o Certainly Apple has _never_ even once tested iOS sufficiently!

That's not a fact.

> "Unfortunately, a patch is still not available"
>
> All Apple really needs is MARKETING to declare iOS perfectly safe.
> "not only is it being triggered in the wild, but that the first
> potential triggers existed a decade ago and every iPhone ever made is
> vulnerable"
>
> Proof iOS has _never_ been sufficiently tested just grows daily. o
> *Apple iPhone Warning Now Affects All iPhone Users*, May 10th, 2020
> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2020/05/10/apple-iphone-exploit-vulnerability-ios-13-mail-problem-update-iphone-11-pro-max-u-iphone-xs-max-xr-upgrade/>
>

Since you like links and quoted text, here's some that's actually real:

'HD Moore, vice president of research and development at Atredis
Partners and an expert in software exploitation, told me on Friday:

"It looks like ZecOps identified a crash report, found a way to
reproduce the crashes, and based on circumstantial evidence assumed this
was being used for malicious purposes. It sounds like after he reported
it to Apple, Apple investigated, found out these were just crash bugs,
and that shuts the door on this being actually in-the-wild-exploitation
of a new iOS zero-day.

It could be Apple is wrong, but given their sensitivity to this stuff,
they probably did a decent job of investigating it. Through the
grapevine I heard that the internal security team that handled this
investigation at Apple was pissed off about it, since ZecOps went
straight to press before they had a chance to review."'

<https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/04/apple-disputes-report-of-non-click-ios-0day-under-exploit-for-two-years/>

> Given Apple is dead last in R&D expenditures, why should Apple even
> bother investing in R&D testing when MARKETING need only declare iOS
> safe and the amazingly gullible (but stupid) iOS users believe Apple
> MARKETING bullshit.

And now Apple is "dead last" in R&D, are they, Liar?

By what metric?

On a list that contains every company in the world?

>
> Oh, and that part about Apple claiming the vulnerability wasn't
> exploited? o Yea... Apple MARKETING/LEGAL simply just made that up.
> Again. (How many times is Apple going to try this trick?) (Like when
> Apple blamed _batteries_ for their _secret_ throttling!) (Or when
> they blamed Google when Google proved Apple never tested iOS!)

Sorry, Liar, but the article you reference doesn't actually say that
they've exploited the bug that causes a CRASH to actually gain control.

It says they think it COULD, but it doesn't say they actually DID it.

>
> Notice Apple _and_ apologists just make _everything_ up on the fly! o
> Apple and Apple users don't need 'no stinking facts.
>
> *Apologists' belief system & MARKETING claims - are purely
> imaginary*.
>
> But what about iPhone 6 users? o Nobody knows whether Apple gives a
> shit about them...
>
> "the bigger question is whether Apple will release a patch for
> previous iOS versions to protect older devices still in use. After
> all, the iPhone 6 is the biggest selling iPhone in the company's
> history"

The fact that Forbes doesn't understand that Zecops didn't actually get
to the point of executing code, doesn't excuse you from using a Forbes
quote at the top of your post and implying its text was from Zecops.

Your Name

unread,

May 11, 2020, 5:35:31 PM5/11/20

to

On 2020-05-11 16:17:28 +0000, Alan Baker said:
> On 2020-05-11 2:54 a.m., For Alan Baker wrote:
>> *Apple is up to their neck in 0-day vulnerabilities!*
>
> That's not a fact.

Please stop replying to the Holder moron. :-\

For Alan Baker

unread,

May 11, 2020, 6:00:51 PM5/11/20

to

On Mon, 11 May 2020 09:17:28 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> And now Apple is "dead last" in R&D, are they, Liar?

Adults will notice apologists always brazenly deny facts...
o Facts never seem to fit into the apologists' imaginary belief systems.

Why do apologists _hate_ facts about Apple?
o I don't know why.

I suspect apologists _hate_ that Apple never is what MARKETING feeds them.

GRAPHS:
o *Apple R&D spend % versus five "similar" tech companies*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26888-comparisonpercentagerdofrev2relabel-l.jpg>
o *Five "similar" tech companies' revenue & R&D costs compared for one year*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26885-07-comparisonrevrdcostsrelabel-l.jpg>
o *Apple R&D % change over the years*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26884-06-yoychangeinrdannualcosts-l.jpg>
o *Apple net income versus operating income & R&D costs over the years*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26881-01-annualnetincomeopincomerdc-l.jpg>
o *Apple annual net sales, operating income, & R&D costs over the years*
<https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/22343-26882-02-annualnetsalesopincrdcosts-l.jpg>

CITES:
o *Apple's R&D spending hits bottom as percentage of revenue*
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-r-d-spending-hits-bottom-as-percentage-of-revenue/>
o *Apple is a cheapskate when it comes to R&D*
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/02/26/apple-cheapskate-when-comes-rd/80987938/>
o *Analysts Criticize Apple Over Low R&D Spend*
<https://www.pymnts.com/apple/2018/apple-spend-more-rd/>
o *Apple's R&D spending hits a low*
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/apples-randd-spending-hits-a-low-2011-10/>
o *Is Apple Underinvesting in R&D?*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/12/is-apple-underinvesting-in-rd-what-steve-jobs-woul.aspx>
o *Apple spends way less than Microsoft on R&D*
<https://money.cnn.com/2013/11/20/technology/mobile/apple-rd-spend/index.html
o *Why Apple Inc. Spends Less On Research And Development Than You Think*
<https://www.ibtimes.com/why-apple-inc-spends-less-research-development-you-think-1954667>
o *Apple Research and Development Expenses by Year*
<https://dazeinfo.com/2019/09/27/apple-research-and-development-expenses-by-year-graphfarm/>
o *Top Ten R&D spenders*
<https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/521302-2018-02/>
o *Apple, Inc. R&D: Too Little?*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/12/01/apple-inc-rd-too-little-or-just-right.aspx>
o *Qualcomm Should Be Scared of These 2 Words That Apple Just Uttered*
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/05/qualcomm-should-be-scared-of-these-2-words-that-ap.aspx>
o *Apple R&D spending is "efficient" versus its competitors*
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/08/09/though-apples-rd-spending-is-massive-its-still-more-efficient-than-all-other-competitors>
etc.

See also:
o *Does it surprise you Apple spends less in R&D (proportionate to revenue) than similar tech companies?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/STrAkx09VYk>
--
Why do apologists always brazenly deny facts they _hate_ about Apple?

unread,

May 11, 2020, 10:29:53 PM5/11/20

to

On 2020-05-11 7:27 p.m., For Your Name wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 15:03:28 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I will try to remember to change the subject to always include "Arlen
>> Holder"
>
> Alan,
>
> The topic of this thread is about a critical Apple vulnerability
> o Which _all_ you apologists _hate_ because it's a fact you don't like.

An alleged vulnerability.

No one else has confirmed it.

>
> Yet, what you claim simply proves, yet again, you're a psychopath.
> o I get it you're embarrassed I proved you're an utter moron.

LOL!

>
> Trust me, don't give me credit for that - since you prove it yourself.
> o Nobody - and I mean nobody - is as fantastically stupid as you are.
>
> None of you apologists have any brains whatseover...
> o It's actually pathetic how little you own by way of synaptic connection
>
> Nonetheless... I warn you and all adults (if any) on this ng...
>
> If you continue to play your silly childish game...
> o Just as Snit, Diesel, DavidB, and all the other psychopaths often play...
>
> I'll just change my nym & headers to get away from you psychopaths.
> o So stop stalking me like the crazy psychopath you are.
>
> If you don't like the topic of this thread, then ignore it...
> o Or add value to the topic.
>
> Like an actual adult would do.
>

Like when the alleged "adult" in you insists on irrelevant mentions of
other people you want to insult?

Alan Baker

unread,

May 11, 2020, 10:31:20 PM5/11/20

to

Oh, and changes his posting nym to try and get a rise out of people.

For the psychopath, Alan Baker

unread,

May 11, 2020, 10:48:08 PM5/11/20

to

On Mon, 11 May 2020 15:14:56 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Facts require proof, and what you have is one report from a company that
> doesn't even claim that last part.

You are a stalking (yet fantastically stupid) psychopath, Alan Baker.
o Just like Snit, Diesel, DavidB, YourName and all the other crazed wackos.

*You not only _hate_ all facts about Apple products...*
o *But you also hate the simple messenger of facts about Apple products.*

Why do you apologists brazenly deny all facts about Apple products?
o I suspect you _hate_ that Apple is never what MARKETING sold you it was.

Literally, you apologists _hate_ that you were fooled by Apple MARKETING.
o Yet, the fact you hate facts doesn't change the fact they're still facts.

FACT:
Direct Quote: "Every iPhone ever made is vulnerable" to still unpatched
0-day bugs (since the October 22nd 2010, iPhone 2G iOS 3.1.3)
--
If you apologists keep this up, I'll be forced to change my headers to
avoid your pathetic crazed psychopathic stalking.

Alan Baker

unread,

May 11, 2020, 11:08:23 PM5/11/20

to

On 2020-05-11 7:48 p.m., For the psychopath, Alan Baker wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 15:14:56 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Facts require proof, and what you have is one report from a company that
>> doesn't even claim that last part.
>
> You are a stalking (yet fantastically stupid) psychopath, Alan Baker.
> o Just like Snit, Diesel, DavidB, YourName and all the other crazed wackos.

Awww...

>
> *You not only _hate_ all facts about Apple products...*
> o *But you also hate the simple messenger of facts about Apple products.*

>
> Why do you apologists brazenly deny all facts about Apple products?
> o I suspect you _hate_ that Apple is never what MARKETING sold you it was.
>
> Literally, you apologists _hate_ that you were fooled by Apple MARKETING.
> o Yet, the fact you hate facts doesn't change the fact they're still facts.
>
> FACT:
> Direct Quote: "Every iPhone ever made is vulnerable" to still unpatched
> 0-day bugs (since the October 22nd 2010, iPhone 2G iOS 3.1.3)

That is NOT a direct quote, Liar.

Not all of it.

You are deliberately combining to different things they said.

Just like you deliberately placed the WSJ quote adjacent to your link
for ZecOps article.

Because you're a liar.

Try this:

Stop lying, and I'll stop calling them out.