sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
>> What about those with v14.8?
>
> "there is no iOS 14.8.1 update including this fix."

Given *nobody has more zero-day exploits than Apple*, the question is why?

Ant and Steve aren't apologists so a normal conversation replete with adult
nuance is possible with them - where I'm struggling to figure out
specifically why Apple has more zero day exploits than anyone else ever had.

To figure out why Apple QA missed all these zero day exploits (usually one a
month but now it's double that!), I was reading up on the cause of this bug
as I'm trying to figure out why Apple has so freakin' many zero-day holes
(far more than any other operating system), where - to your point - the guy
testing it said he only sampled some older iOS versions and he found the bug
apparently in 14.7 (and he surmised it was in older ones still).

Couple this exploit with the fact that it's extremely similar to previous
ones and it all adds to the evidence that Apple _never_ tests iOS
sufficiently.

I realize Apple spends almost nothing in R&D compared to what Apple spends
in marketing... but you'd think that Apple would some day actually run QA.

Yet, iOS 13 was a shit show, as was iOS14, and now, iOS 15 is just as bad
with Apple having 17 zero-day exploits this year alone (that's a record!).

Given *nobody has more zero-day exploits than Apple*, the question is why?
--
Note we're not talking bugs, but _zero-day_ bugs (which are different).

On 10/12/2021 8:06 PM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
>>> What about those with v14.8?
>>
>> "there is no iOS 14.8.1 update including this fix."
>
> Given *nobody has more zero-day exploits than Apple*, the question is why?

Every device that qualified for 14.x also qualifies for 15.x, all the
way back to the 6s and 6s Plus.

Why put resources into updating an old version of iOS? If you want to
patch the security issues then you need to update to 15.0.2.

There are valid reasons why some users don't want to update to 15.x, but
they have to weigh those reasons against the risks.

In article <sk73ni$h1p$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Every device that qualified for 14.x also qualifies for 15.x, all the
> way back to the 6s and 6s Plus.

the only thing you got correct.

> Why put resources into updating an old version of iOS?

because some people choose to not update.

> If you want to
> patch the security issues then you need to update to 15.0.2.

nope. 14.8 and 12.5.5 say you're wrong once again.

both are on a different track and will be updated when they are ready.

> There are valid reasons why some users don't want to update to 15.x, but
> they have to weigh those reasons against the risks.

no there aren't.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
> Why put resources into updating an old version of iOS? If you want to
> patch the security issues then you need to update to 15.0.2.

*When are Apple customers going to read actual facts & not only web ads?*

The few adults on this ng own cognitive skills apologists just don't have.
<https://www.engadget.com/2014-02-12-a-look-at-apples-randd-expenditures-from-1995-2013.html>

This makes sense, especially since Apple is all marketing and the least R&D
by percent of revenue (even by total dollars than many high tech companies).
<https://www.cultofmac.com/720505/apple-rd-spending-2020-compared-to-google-microsoft/>

Given Apple doesn't fund R&D what they lavishly lather into marketing, it
makes sense that Apple would need to fully stop all QA on older releases.
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-r-d-spending-hits-bottom-as-percentage-of-revenue/>

Google proved huge portions of iOS have _never_ been tested, so it's not
like Apple is putting _any_ effort into coding & QA of new releases either.
<https://www.phonearena.com/news/analyst-says-apple-could-double-its-R-D-spending_id106625>

With often only 2% of Apple's expenditures being on R&D, it's not surprising
iOS used to consistently average a sordid one zero-day a month (which is why
iOS 13 and 14 were veritable shit storms of unplanned patch releases).
<https://techland.time.com/2011/10/18/why-does-apple-only-spend-2-of-its-money-on-rd/>

But in 2021, Apple coded an astoundingly sick 17 zero-days already!
*Apple IOS Zero-day Vulnerabilities Running Rampant in 2021*
<https://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/apple-ios-zero-day-vulnerabilities-running-rampant-in-2021/>

*When are Apple customers going to read actual facts & not only web ads?*
--
Apologists deny what even Apple can't deny - which is iOS quality sucks.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> There are valid reasons why some users don't want to update to 15.x, but
>> they have to weigh those reasons against the risks.
>
> no there aren't.

Methinks apologists are ignorant of what facts exist outside Apple's site.

The fact remains that Apple coding quality sucks which even you can't deny.
*Apple IOS Zero-day Vulnerabilities Running Rampant in 2021*
<https://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/apple-ios-zero-day-vulnerabilities-running-rampant-in-2021/>

The fact also remains that Apple spends almost nothing on R&D compared to
any other high tech company, which is likely why coding quality sucks.
*Apple R&D spending looks anemic compared to rivals' big budgets*
<https://www.cultofmac.com/720505/apple-rd-spending-2020-compared-to-google-microsoft/>

While it fluctuates (depending more on revenue than anything else), Apple's
R&D is a measly 2% which we need to compare with Apple's MARKETING budget.
*Why Does Apple Only Spend 2% of Its Money on R&D?*
<https://techland.time.com/2011/10/18/why-does-apple-only-spend-2-of-its-money-on-rd/>

With the highest marketing & lowest R&D, why should we be surprised that iOS
13, 14, & now 15 are a shit storm clusterfuck of unplanned patch releases?
*Apple Confirms iOS 15 Zero-Day Exploitations*
<https://www.securityweek.com/apple-confirms-ios-15-zero-day-exploitation>

In article <sk75n4$d6f$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Robin Goodfellow
<Ancient-of-Days@Heaven.Net> wrote:

>
> Methinks

you don't

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> asked
>> Methinks
>
> you don't

It's revealing when apologists can't respond to facts like an _adult_ would.

I'm eminently logical and reasonable nospam - I own adult cognitive skills.
As a result, I try to find, understand, and then assess the bugfix facts.
<https://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/apple-ios-zero-day-vulnerabilities-running-rampant-in-2021/>

I process a ton of bugfix facts about Apple, Google, Microsoft, & Canonical.
Which is why I'm not ignorant of the nature of their unplanned releases.
<https://thehackernews.com/2021/10/apple-releases-urgent-iphone-and-ipad.html>

Nobody has more unplanned zero-day bugfix emergency releases than does iOS.
Nobody.
<https://www.cyberscoop.com/ios-zero-day-zerodium-high-supply/>

The question is why.

The facts easily prove iOS 13, iOS 14, and now iOS 14 are a clusterfuck of
unplanned bug fixes (there were 17 zero-day holes in iOS in 2021 alone!).
<https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/apples-buggiest-ios-release-yet-introduces-more-bugs-in-ios-13-2-users-report-that-multitasking-is-now-dead-7608061.html>

*iOS' sordid zero-day hole per month record just doubled to _two_ a month!*

It's a fact Apple has the lowest R&D of all high tech, and it's a fact that
the past three iOS releases were a clusterfuck of unplanned bugfix releases.
<https://www.cultofmac.com/720505/apple-rd-spending-2020-compared-to-google-microsoft/>

*Why do _you_ think those R&D & vulnerability facts are the case, nospam?*

On 10/13/2021 10:33 AM, Robin Goodfellow wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
>> Why put resources into updating an old version of iOS? If you want to
>> patch the security issues then you need to update to 15.0.2.
>

<snip>

You never responded to the question of why Apple should put resources
into updating 14.x. Since all the devices that 14.x works on, 15.x also
works on, it would be odd for Apple to put a lot of resources into
updating old iOS versions.

There is a valid reason that some iPhone owners don't want to upgrade to
15.x but it's rather minor and involves only a small extra expense
(unless it's an iPhone locked to AT&T, then iOS 15 is not an option for
now).

I ran into this issue with my iPhone Xr which is locked for a year to
Total Wireless or other América Móvil brands (yeah, buying locked phones
is bad, but it was $211.75, less than 1/3 of what it would otherwise
cost new and unlocked). I bought an R-13 unlock SIM. It worked fine on
iOS 14.x, I did the T-Mobile eSIM test drive on the Xr once it was
unlocked, but the R-13 unlock SIM seller warned not to upgrade iOS or
the unlock would stop working. So now I have to buy a new unlock r-SIM
if I travel and want to buy a prepaid data eSIM (until one year is up
and they will unlock the phone). I may not bother since I have no
foreign travel planned and would be unlikely to do any such travel prior
to when the one year is up. But it only costs $5-6 if I do want to buy
another R-13 unlock SIM.

In article <sk9s09$2ki$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> You never responded to the question of why Apple should put resources
> into updating 14.x. Since all the devices that 14.x works on, 15.x also
> works on, it would be odd for Apple to put a lot of resources into
> updating old iOS versions.

given that they've been updating ios 12 for several years and that they
made ios 15 optional while remaining on ios 14, it's not odd that they
would invest resources into both tracks.

> There is a valid reason that some iPhone owners don't want to upgrade to
> 15.x but it's rather minor and involves only a small extra expense
> (unless it's an iPhone locked to AT&T, then iOS 15 is not an option for
> now).

there are no valid reasons for remaining on ios 14.

> I ran into this issue with my iPhone Xr which is locked for a year to
> Total Wireless or other América Móvil brands (yeah, buying locked phones
> is bad, but it was $211.75, less than 1/3 of what it would otherwise
> cost new and unlocked). I bought an R-13 unlock SIM. It worked fine on
> iOS 14.x, I did the T-Mobile eSIM test drive on the Xr once it was
> unlocked, but the R-13 unlock SIM seller warned not to upgrade iOS or
> the unlock would stop working.

an unsupported 'unlock sim' is not a valid reason.

In message <sk9s09$2ki$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> You never responded to the question of why Apple should put resources
> into updating 14.x.

The FACT is that Apple HAS updated 14.x, so why is irrelevant.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain! But won't Mr. Hoover notice a missing evening
gown?"

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> asked
> You never responded to the question of why Apple should put resources
> into updating 14.x. Since all the devices that 14.x works on, 15.x also
> works on, it would be odd for Apple to put a lot of resources into
> updating old iOS versions.

I'm not claiming Apple should put resources into any particular release so
much as I'm saying Project Zero proved beyond any doubt (& Apple couldn't
dispute the facts) *huge swaths of iOS code have _never_ been tested*.

Hell... how do you think a 14 year old kid cracked Facetime wide open, and
then Apple fixed a half dozen critical bugs when they finally _looked_ at
the Facetime code (likely for the first time in depth!) within a month?

Why do you think even Apple engineers and Craig Federighi himself complained
that Apple needs to do a better job (your point that it's coding more so
than QA is a fair assessment though - but the end result is the same).

Why do you think iOS 13 was a record shitstorm of unplanned bugs (from the
very start), as was iOS 14, and now iOS 15 is a similar clusterfuck of bugs?

If Apple spent on R&D what Apple spends on Marketing, then I suspect the
code wouldn't have (at this point) two zero-day vulnerabilities each month!

> There is a valid reason that some iPhone owners don't want to upgrade to
> 15.x but it's rather minor and involves only a small extra expense
> (unless it's an iPhone locked to AT&T, then iOS 15 is not an option for
> now).

Hell, if you asked me, only a supremely ignorant iOS owner would update to
_any_ iOS release without waiting at least a year or two before doing so.

There is nothing of value in almost any iOS release anyway, and, as you well
know, the Safari situation is a clusterfuck in and of itself in iOS 15.
> I ran into this issue with my iPhone Xr which is locked for a year to
> Total Wireless or other Am�rica M�vil brands (yeah, buying locked phones
> is bad, but it was $211.75, less than 1/3 of what it would otherwise
> cost new and unlocked).

There's nothing wrong with locked phones, IMHO. I have 4 of them right now.
When the two-year period is up, the first thing I do is have the carrier
unlock them, which, for T-Mobile, is done ad hoc using an app on the phone.

> I bought an R-13 unlock SIM.

I never heard of that until this moment, so, I'm googling as I type...

<https://www.redmondpie.com/rsim-13-can-unlock-iphone-xs-xs-max-xr-x-on-ios-12-with-iccid-trick-heres-how/>
"Use the latest R-SIM ICCID trick which is basically a SIM card that,
once installed, unlocks the device by taking advantage of a flaw in
Apple�s iOS. That means that this SIM can be installed, a few steps taken,
and then any carrier�s SIM can be swapped back in to get it working as any
other unlocked iPhone without any issues, regardless of which carrier it
belongs to."

"The R-SIM is now updated to v13 to support the latest iPhone XR
and iPhone XS / XS Max"

More info...
<http://rsim5.com/productview.php?id=82>
<https://geveystore.com/r-sim-13-instructions/>
<https://forum.gsmhosting.com/vbb/f819/r-sim13-unlock-card-iphone-ios15-2988392/>
<https://zerofy.ng/how-to-unlock-an-iphone-with-an-unlock-chip/>
"The use of an unlock chip has become a prominent method to unlock
an iPhone. For less than $15 you can say goodbye to the
"Sim not Supported" prompt that hinders the usage of an iPhone"

OK. I skimmed those.
a. Apparently you pay around $15 & get an unlock SIM chip
b. You put it in and punch a few buttons and it unlocks your iPhone
c. The caveat is that each unlock SIM chip works with different iOS flaws

Given the particular phone, and the particular iOS version, I can see you'd
have to _match_ that to whatever iOS flaw the unlock SIM chip uses.

> It worked fine on
> iOS 14.x, I did the T-Mobile eSIM test drive on the Xr once it was
> unlocked, but the R-13 unlock SIM seller warned not to upgrade iOS or
> the unlock would stop working. So now I have to buy a new unlock r-SIM
> if I travel and want to buy a prepaid data eSIM (until one year is up
> and they will unlock the phone). I may not bother since I have no
> foreign travel planned and would be unlikely to do any such travel prior
> to when the one year is up. But it only costs $5-6 if I do want to buy
> another R-13 unlock SIM.

I had never thought about the "R-13 unlock SIM" process before as I have
simply unlocked my phones using an app on the phone when they're
"paid off" (in my case, when the lien is over on the Androids and when the
iPhone is paid off).

Also I don't know about your carrier, but AFAIK, mine (T-Mobile) will
temporarily unlock the phone if I tell them I'm traveling (but when I travel
to Europe, the plan gives me unlimited everything but calls - which are 20
cents per minute - so I haven't needed to ask them for a temporary unlock).

Does your carrier give you a temporary unlock?
If so, wouldn't that solve the issue instantly?

Otherwise, I can see, I think, why certain iOS releases are needed because
the unlock SIM chips take advantage of different iOS flaws depending on the
details of the phone, and the current iOS version on that phone.

If these are dumb questions, please realize you have greater unlock
knowledge than I have, since my experience in the past was the carrier sent
an unlock sequence in the email, and more recently (starting a few years
ago) the carrier allowed me to unlock it myself with an app on the phone
after 40 days on my plan (that was with my Costco $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus).

The $100 Moto G from Google came unlocked, but my handful of free Samsung
Galaxy A32 5G phones and the new iPhone 12 mini are all locked right now.

I don't do anything fancier than call T-Mobile to unlock, so I apologize for
not fully comprehending your "R-13" process but skimming the information
above I can see that the specific phone & iOS version matters greatly for
that process because it takes advantage of flaws in iOS Apple didn't fix.

In article <sk9s09$2ki$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> You never responded to the question of why Apple should put resources
> into updating 14.x. Since all the devices that 14.x works on, 15.x also
> works on, it would be odd for Apple to put a lot of resources into
> updating old iOS versions.

it's not odd at all.

14.* is on a separate track and 14.8.1 was released today.

<https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT212868>
About the security content of iOS 14.8.1 and iPadOS 14.8.1

once again, you're wrong.

In comp.mobile.ipad nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sk9s09$2ki$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > You never responded to the question of why Apple should put resources
> > into updating 14.x. Since all the devices that 14.x works on, 15.x also
> > works on, it would be odd for Apple to put a lot of resources into
> > updating old iOS versions.

> it's not odd at all.

> 14.* is on a separate track and 14.8.1 was released today.

> <https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT212868>
> About the security content of iOS 14.8.1 and iPadOS 14.8.1

> once again, you're wrong.

I wonder if Apple will still release fixes for v12.
--
Dang termite alates' annual nuptial flights were today and early this year after yesterday's <.5" cold rain.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

In article <wNqdndznQNNZa-X8nZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Ant
<ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

>
> I wonder if Apple will still release fixes for v12.

most likely, although at some point, it will stop.

they're each on separate tracks and are not necessarily released at
exactly the same time.

In message <wNqdndznQNNZa-X8nZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.ipad nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <sk9s09$2ki$1@dont-email.me>, sms
>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>> > You never responded to the question of why Apple should put resources
>> > into updating 14.x. Since all the devices that 14.x works on, 15.x also
>> > works on, it would be odd for Apple to put a lot of resources into
>> > updating old iOS versions.

>> it's not odd at all.

>> 14.* is on a separate track and 14.8.1 was released today.

>> <https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT212868>
>> About the security content of iOS 14.8.1 and iPadOS 14.8.1

>> once again, you're wrong.

> I wonder if Apple will still release fixes for v12.

They just did a few weeks ago.

--
I presume you're mortal, and may err.

In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
> In message <wNqdndznQNNZa-X8nZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> > In comp.mobile.ipad nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> In article <sk9s09$2ki$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> >> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> >> > You never responded to the question of why Apple should put resources
> >> > into updating 14.x. Since all the devices that 14.x works on, 15.x also
> >> > works on, it would be odd for Apple to put a lot of resources into
> >> > updating old iOS versions.

> >> it's not odd at all.

> >> 14.* is on a separate track and 14.8.1 was released today.

> >> <https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT212868>
> >> About the security content of iOS 14.8.1 and iPadOS 14.8.1

> >> once again, you're wrong.

> > I wonder if Apple will still release fixes for v12.

> They just did a few weeks ago.

I meant the future.

--
Dang termite alates' annual nuptial flights were today and early this year after yesterday's <.5" cold rain.
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )