Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
> Links to websites complaining about this or that bug doesn't constitute
> proof that code has never been tested, doofus troll. You continue to
> prove you know nothing about software development, dip shit.

You apologists are no different from Trumpists in almost every way possible.

That you saw the proof many times, and that you ignored that proof even more
times, is what proves you're always going to be ignorant Jolly Roger (much
like Trumpists are) of everything you don't like about Apple products.

I gave you, many times, in this thread alone, and in many others, the link
where Google explicitly explained in gory deep detail that Apple's iOS code
could _never_ (ever!) possibly have been tested - & yet - you're still
ignorant of that.

FACT:
*Apple has _never_ even once tested huge portions of critical iOS code!*

This same fact was proven with Apple's iTunes implementation on Windows
(i.e., huge portions of Apple's shipped code have _never_ once been tested!)

Here's the link again, but you're ignorant so I'm wasting my energy on you.

*A very deep dive into iOS Exploit chains found in the wild*
<https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-very-deep-dive-into-ios-exploit.html>
--
Apologists are no different from Trumpists in almost every way possible.

On 2021-10-05, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
>>
>> Links to websites complaining about this or that bug doesn't
>> constitute proof that code has never been tested, doofus troll. You
>> continue to prove you know nothing about software development, dip
>> shit.
>
> I gave you, many times, in this thread alone, and in many others, the
> link

Arlen, clueless troll that he is, can only post links to webpages with no
actual evidence of his lame assertion that Apple's code "has never been
tested", as usual. All he has are baseless assertions and misguided
opinions. He's a pathetic troll.

> Here's the link again

Links to websites complaining about this or that bug doesn't constitute
proof that code has never been tested, doofus troll.

> but you're ignorant

Insults are the last refuge of the weak minded when they feel powerless.
Stay stupid, Arlen.

--
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

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
> Links to websites complaining about this or that bug doesn't constitute
> proof that code has never been tested, doofus troll.

It's amazing how fantastically _ignorant_ Jolly Roger easily proves to be.
What's shocking is how similar these apologists are to Trumpists.

Jolly Roger just read an article by security researchers which explicitly
said the iOS code (for years!) couldn't possibly ever have been tested.

And yet, all Jolly Roger sees is a "link" to a "website" that doesn't
"constitute proof" which is Jolly Roger's way of denying all facts about
Apple that he simply doesn't like.

I've never met people as incredibly ignorant as these apologists are.

They get _nothing_ out of this rather easy to read article.
<https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-very-deep-dive-into-ios-exploit.html>
"*The root causes I highlight here are not novel and are often overlooked.*
*We'll see cases of Apple code which seems to have never worked*,
*Apple code that likely skipped QA or likely had little testing*
*or no code review before the release was shipped to users by Apple*."

This was for _many_ iOS releases... that Apple didn't test even once.
The fact Apple doesn't sufficiently test iOS releases is clear to adults.

All iPhones are compromised the instant Apple installs an iOS release.
The proof is _overwhelming_ Apple doesn't even _test_ much of iOS code!

The proof is not only from Project Zero - it's everywhere.
*Even Apple can't refute the fact they never tested their iOS code.*

Here's just a few verbatim quotes from security researchers at Project Zero.
"The more important takeaway, however, is what the vulnerability was.
In 2014, Apple added an unfinished implementation of a new feature named
"vouchers" and part of this new code was a new syscall (technically, a
task port MIG method) which, from what I can tell, never worked. To be
clear, if there had been a test which called the syscall with the
expected arguments, it would have caused a kernel panic. If any Apple
developer had attempted to use this feature during those four years,
their phone would have immediately crashed."

"It's difficult to understand how this error could be introduced into a
core IPC library that shipped to end users. While errors are common in
software development, a serious one like this should have quickly been
found by a unit test, code review or even fuzzing. It's especially
unfortunate as this location would naturally be one of the first ones
an attacker would look, as I detail below."

"It's the kernel bug used here which is, unfortunately, easy to find and
exploit (if you don't believe me, feel free to seek a second opinion!).
An IOKit device driver with an external method which in the very first
statement performs an unbounded memmove with a length argument directly
controlled by the attacker"

The amazing thing is I've never met people as ignorant as these apologists,
who, given a spoon fed easy article to read, even then they can't see _any_
facts in that article if those facts tell the truth about Apple products.
--
All of you apologists own imaginary belief systems - much like Trumpists do.

On 2021-10-06, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
>> Robin (Arlen) previously exclaimed:
>>>
>>> huge portions of iOS code have _never_ been tested by Apple QA
>>
>> Links to websites complaining about this or that bug doesn't
>> constitute proof that code has never been tested, doofus troll.
>
> *Apple code that likely skipped QA or likely had little testing* *or
> no code review before the release was shipped to users by Apple*."

Adults reading this can see that "likely skipped QA" and "likely skipped
testing" are both *non-factual* statements as well as being a *far* cry
from Arlen's asinine claim that "huge portions of iOS code have _never_
been tested by Apple QA". You lose, again, Arlen. Pitiful 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

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2021-10-06, Robin Goodfellow <Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> asked
>>> Robin (Arlen) previously exclaimed:
>>>>
>>>> huge portions of iOS code have _never_ been tested by Apple QA
>>>
>>> Links to websites complaining about this or that bug doesn't
>>> constitute proof that code has never been tested, doofus troll.
>>
>> *Apple code that likely skipped QA or likely had little testing* *or
>> no code review before the release was shipped to users by Apple*."
>
> Adults reading this can see that "likely skipped QA" and "likely skipped
> testing" are both *non-factual* statements as well as being a *far* cry
> from Arlen's asinine claim that "huge portions of iOS code have _never_
> been tested by Apple QA". You lose, again, Arlen. Pitiful troll.
>
But persistent.