Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android

[Jolly Roger]

Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

On 6 Aug 2016 00:25:17 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

Does the exploit work in Safari?

In a quick read of these references...

[seemingly endless list of URLs followed by zero substance omitted]

Is that a "yes" or a "no"? Because if Safari's WebKit is unaffected, that
means most of the entire iOS platform is unaffected - which leads one to
wonder: why are you posting this to misc.phone.mobile.iphone?...
#obvioustroll #lame

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

 

[Aardvarks]

On 6 Aug 2016 02:46:43 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

Is that a "yes" or a "no"? Because if Safari's WebKit is unaffected, that
means most of the entire iOS platform is unaffected - which leads one to
wonder: why are you posting this to misc.phone.mobile.iphone?...

What?
Why do you troll so much?

Is this a safari-only newsgroup?

Or, are you really so stuck in the stone age that you actually think that
the primitive and restrictive Safari is the *only* browser on iOS?

Or, are you so limited in your choices of browsers, that you can't imagine
anyone using a modern browser that supports the latest HTML5 specification
(even though it is a few years old by now).

Sheesh.

You say "I" troll, but Jeff kindly brought this topic up, and he wasn't
trolling when he brought it up. I was simply responding to Jeff ... so, as
always, *you* are the troll accusing me of bringing this topic up when all
I did was flesh it out (every single time - the troll is *always* you!).

You add *zero* value.
And you accuse people who do add value of things that only you do!

It's funny, but you don't even *remember* how this was brought up - that's
how little you count to the discussion!

Anyway, despite your childish lack of usable memory and your constantly
annoying trolling behavior, my response to your specific Safari question is
that I don't know anything about the primitive Safari app since I wouldn't
be caught dead using such a restrictive browser.

Therefore, I don't know whether Safari supports the latest battery api in
the HTML5 specification or not - so it behooves you to figure out whether
Safari has been updated to support HTML5 components such as the battery
API.

Apple is so slow to update their apps that I'd guess being five years
behind everyone else is pretty normal for them - so you might actually be
safe with the primitive Safari app after all.

I mean, the most important thing in the world to you is for Apple to keep
you safe, isn't it? So, this time, Apple may have saved you from the modern
HTML5 specification. Sometimes, doing nothing to improve your apps works
out for the best.

In fact, knowing how primitive and restrictive Safari is, I'd take a guess
that Safari probably does not yet support this relatively recent (2012)
HTML5 component, since Safari is still stuck in the stone age, so, you're
probably safe this time due to the primitive nature of Apple products
(which would be a good thing in this case so I congratulate you on your
choice of browsers).

If my guess is right that Safari is still stuck in the stone age, then the
topic that Jeff brought up about the HTML5 specification Battery API is
still relevant to the more modern browsers that are available on iOS.

But, you're probably safe if you stick with Safari (which was probably
never updated to the latest HTML5 specification, knowing Apple).

 

[Jolly Roger]

Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

On 6 Aug 2016 02:46:43 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

[seemingly endless list of URLs followed by zero substance omitted]

Is that a "yes" or a "no"? Because if Safari's WebKit is unaffected, that
means most of the entire iOS platform is unaffected - which leads one to
wonder: why are you posting this to misc.phone.mobile.iphone?...

Is this a safari-only newsgroup?

[more useless troll blather omitted]

So most of iOS is unaffected. Thanks for playing! : )

Troll on.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

 

[nospam]

In article <e0mbbeFevmtU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

[seemingly endless list of URLs followed by zero substance omitted]

Is that a "yes" or a "no"? Because if Safari's WebKit is unaffected, that
means most of the entire iOS platform is unaffected - which leads one to
wonder: why are you posting this to misc.phone.mobile.iphone?...

Is this a safari-only newsgroup?

[more useless troll blather omitted]

So most of iOS is unaffected. Thanks for playing! : )

Troll on.

it's amazing how much useless nonsensical spew he can generate without
ever finding the very 'facts' he claims to seek.

<http://caniuse.com/#feat=battery-status>

 

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-08-06, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <e0mbbeFevmtU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

[seemingly endless list of URLs followed by zero substance omitted]

Is that a "yes" or a "no"? Because if Safari's WebKit is unaffected, that
means most of the entire iOS platform is unaffected - which leads one to
wonder: why are you posting this to misc.phone.mobile.iphone?...

Is this a safari-only newsgroup?

[more useless troll blather omitted]

So most of iOS is unaffected. Thanks for playing! : )

Troll on.

it's amazing how much useless nonsensical spew he can generate without
ever finding the very 'facts' he claims to seek.

http://caniuse.com/#feat=battery-status

It's what he does best. And as usual, he falls flat on his face when
confronted with reality. He's a piss poor old troll.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

 

[Aardvarks]

On Sat, 06 Aug 2016 10:54:16 -0400, nospam wrote:

it's amazing how much useless nonsensical spew he can generate without
ever finding the very 'facts' he claims to seek.

Funny coming from you ... who has never once told the truth.

Your URL simply says that, as I predicted, that Safari is primitive code
that doesn't even support the modern battery-status HTML5 spec which
debuted years ago.

Since your primary motive in using iOS is fear, this primitive code served
you well in this case.

However, your main approach is to "Just Give Up", so, that's why you never
once considered that there are more modern browsers out there for iOS.

You, like the Jolly Roger troll, never once added value to a single
conversation of fact. You can't actually add value.

That's because:
a. You're afraid
b. You want Apple Marketing to save you
c. You can only think of 1 way to do anything, and if that 1 way fails, you
"just give up".

It's an Apple one-button-mouse trademark term:
*"Just Give Up"*

Luckily, since you use Safari, and since Safari gave up long ago on modern
improvements in the HTML5 spec, just giving up has kept you safe.

Congratulations!
Hiding under the iOS rock has its benefits in safety after all.

 

[Aardvarks]

On 6 Aug 2016 15:14:06 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> He's a piss poor old troll.

Says Jolly Troll himself.

Your contribution to this thread is .... what?

0 === troll roger

PS: Given your zero contribution ever, should we call you Jolly Troll or
Troll Roger?

 

[nospam]

In article <no5cda$ud1$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

it's amazing how much useless nonsensical spew he can generate without
ever finding the very 'facts' he claims to seek.

Funny coming from you ... who has never once told the truth.

Your URL simply says that, as I predicted, that Safari is primitive code
that doesn't even support the modern battery-status HTML5 spec which
debuted years ago.

first you babble that the battery status is a 'privacy exploit' and
that it should be disabled, then when it's shown that safari is not
vulnerable at all, you call safari primitive.

you can't have it both ways.

not only that, but most of the browsers listed are based on apple's
webkit, so if you're going to say that safari is primitive code, you're
also saying that android, chrome and opera are just as primitive, given
that they also use webkit.

so much for your 'facts'.



In article <no2qpc$1d8b$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks
<aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

Some factual updates...

The battery-status API privacy exploit works on multiple browsers and on
multiple operating systems, including all the well known operating systems
for both mobile devices and computers.

Setting the following "about:config" option in Firefox should prevent the
exploit that Jeff kindly informed us about:

Change from: dom.battery.enabled;true
Change to: dom.battery.enabled;false

I'm not sure where the user.js file is located on iOS or in Android, but on
your computer desktops and laptops, it will be located in "aboutrofiles".

 

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-08-06, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <no5cda$ud1$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks
aardvarks@a.b.c.com> wrote:

it's amazing how much useless nonsensical spew he can generate without
ever finding the very 'facts' he claims to seek.

Funny coming from you ... who has never once told the truth.

Your URL simply says that, as I predicted, that Safari is primitive code
that doesn't even support the modern battery-status HTML5 spec which
debuted years ago.

first you babble that the battery status is a 'privacy exploit' and
that it should be disabled, then when it's shown that safari is not
vulnerable at all, you call safari primitive.

So lame. He's fooling nobody here.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

 

[tlvp]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 15:03:21 -0400, Aardvarks wrote:

Your URL simply says that, as I predicted, that Safari is primitive code
that doesn't even support the modern battery-status HTML5 spec which
debuted years ago.

Indeed. Corollary: noone can exploit the battery-status spyware
capabilities using Safari; i.e., Safari (precisely because of its greater
primitivity) is a more secure browser in that regard.

I should have thought that should make you happy . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

 

[nospam]

In article <fc29vdq9fnqt.1jdyk7h5ghjmb.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 15:03:21 -0400, Aardvarks wrote:
Your URL simply says that, as I predicted, that Safari is primitive code
that doesn't even support the modern battery-status HTML5 spec which
debuted years ago.

Indeed. Corollary: noone can exploit the battery-status spyware
capabilities using Safari; i.e., Safari (precisely because of its greater
primitivity) is a more secure browser in that regard.

except that it's not more primitive because it shares a common codebase
with android, chrome and opera, just different forks.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 07/08/16 17:57, nospam wrote:

In article <fc29vdq9fnqt.1jdyk7h5ghjmb.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 15:03:21 -0400, Aardvarks wrote:
Your URL simply says that, as I predicted, that Safari is primitive code
that doesn't even support the modern battery-status HTML5 spec which
debuted years ago.

Indeed. Corollary: noone can exploit the battery-status spyware
capabilities using Safari; i.e., Safari (precisely because of its greater
primitivity) is a more secure browser in that regard.

except that it's not more primitive because it shares a common codebase
with android, chrome and opera, just different forks.

By now, they're *very* different forks. There's been
close to zero cross-pollination for some time.

Can you folk please drop sci.electronics.repair from
the newsgroup list? Android v iOS discussions have no
place there.

 

[Jolly Roger]

Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote:

Can you folk please drop sci.electronics.repair from
the newsgroup list? Android v iOS discussions have no
place there.

You can certainly ask the OP, Aardvarks (a well known Apple hating nym
switching troll), to refrain from including that group. Just don't hold
your breath.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR