Announcement

**Deviant Ollam** · March 28, 2009, 23:54

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

Originally posted by TheCotMan View Post

What are your thoughts?

i hold out hope that this may still come to pass, and we have a better shot with it due to the backing of a larger company like Google and the existence of the developer phone.

my hopes will be dashed, however, due to the fact that Google is evil. it's a pity, too, because there are some parts of that phone which are absolutely teh sexx. have you seen its unlock feature? not the "unlock and use all SIM cards" but rather the "unlock out of a secure state by the owner"... it's frigging beautiful.

**barry99705** · March 30, 2009, 19:07

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

Originally posted by Deviant Ollam View Post

i hold out hope that this may still come to pass, and we have a better shot with it due to the backing of a larger company like Google and the existence of the developer phone.

my hopes will be dashed, however, due to the fact that Google is evil. it's a pity, too, because there are some parts of that phone which are absolutely teh sexx. have you seen its unlock feature? not the "unlock and use all SIM cards" but rather the "unlock out of a secure state by the owner"... it's frigging beautiful.

Man, that screen almost looks like a game I used to have as a kid, just can't remember the name.....

**TheCotMan** · March 30, 2009, 20:45

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

I've been following peoples exploits to gain more access, and power from their HTC G1 Google Dev Phone and found a few:

Debian Linux for ARM running on the phone: Phone still works while running Debian, and when you exit from Debian, you go back to the same Phone GUI you had as shipped.

Kernel.Org Android Kernel

Limited OpenVPN running on the Phone -- linked against built-in (limited) crypto library of phone -- possible to pass all your traffic through an OpenVPN Tunnel.

This is looking like a pretty sexy device. Reading more about it shows that the shell-based interface is a really stripped down, busy-box-like shell environment. Heck, people have complained there is no pager (more/less/most) in the default 1.1 environment.

802.11b/g, BlueTooth, USB, qwerty keyboard, runs linux, is unlocked as a phone and hardware unlocked.

Unfortunately, they really want to funnel people into Java Development for the Android, not system development or (from what I've seen) integration of a package-based Linux OS. This makes sense where profit is considered. Java Code provides an opportunity for greater compatibility across architecture and platforms, while system packages would tie packages to a more restrictive set.

Of course, it would only take one left turn, or ~~right~~ wrong turn like what Apple has done with many of their products-- make them accessible to vendors/people/users and then yank the rug out from underneath them later.

It looks like people have been busy re-factoring this device and system into something they want.

So the next question I would have would be this:
Will the drive by many people to customize this to their own interests lead to a forking of development, and take attention away from a single, or primary branch of development and enhancement?

[OpenSource projects are restricted in the same way as closed-source projects, in that resources are finite, and the most skilled and talented developers are uncommon. Getting people to work together in a closed-source, commercial, proprietary environment is "easy" ; if people don't do what you want, you fire them, and if they do what you want, you pay them. In OpenSource (not all, of course), people do what they want, like cats.... lots of cats. In many cases, there is an AlphaDeveloper in HomeGrown OpenSource project, and others willing to do what the core developer encourages. Left to their own devices, wants and desires, Developers/Engineers don't always make what is most profitable. Instead they tend to choose to do what is sexy to them. Some say this causes them to make a better product, as it is something they plan to use often. However, the purpose of this is not a war between Open vs. Closed Source, but a question of risk in taking an increasing chunk of the market place -- something that is often not the primary focus in OpenSource projects.]

Re-stated: Will dilution of talent and loss of focus because of infinite desires (forking) lead to a failure to produce a product that meets other people's "needs" better than the competition?

**YenTheFirst** · March 30, 2009, 22:36

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

From what I've seen of software in general, both closed and open source, on windows, linux, game consoles, and even the iPhone, is that there is, statistically, a lot of crap or fluff in proportion to things that are actually good.
(disclaimer: I don't own an iPhone, but all my coworkers do)
One would think that apples developer relationship would encourage more focused, and more good, applications, since the development is focused on a single platform. However, even with this potential advantage, most apps aren't even worth a free download.

I don't think the problem is so much a dilution of existing talent, but how difficult it will be for new talent to come in. If a system is closed and proprietary, only really dedicated people will try to develop for it. For example, the PSP. People develop homebrew for it, but it's not "The Big Thing". Every other firmware update breaks homebrew, intentionally.

On the other hand, if the hardware and operating system of these phones is open source, and well documented, even though the talent is spread out over many targets, the individual developers will have the resources to actually create something worthwhile.

I guess my point is, in trying to get really good apps, it's less important to get a lot of people all on the same platform, and more important to make sure that the tools are available on any given platform for the statistically rare person to come along and work their magic.
(and this is true both in open and closed source)

**robosycho** · April 1, 2009, 01:28

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

I certainly think that open source software generally suffers from a lack of leadership, however I would also argue that the "rare" developer who can unite a team for an interesting project is a little less "rare" than you think. While arguing, I'd like to point out that Google has done a lot as far as generating a lot of solid products through non-standard approaches. At the same time, I will agree that Google has done a lot of things that don't make a lot of sense and are stifling. I'm most distressed at the recent announcement that Google will be pulling the plug on applications made by developers that let them do something that would normally be done through Sprint, but for free. (Something about tethering, I don't really understand the full context.) Its definitely a step in the wrong direction from Google's statements about "open source". I understand that they have a requirement to make sure that business is profitable for their partner, but my interest in developing some ultra-sweet sexy app for Android has dropped significantly. I still think its a neat idea, but why would I put money into something that's not *completely* open, as deviant ollam said. Putting in hours of free time just to be shut down because the neat trick I discovered wasn't actually intended to be put out, it almost feels as if they should pay me for finding their problems for the time I put in.

**YenTheFirst** · April 6, 2009, 13:14

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

hmm. As I understand the whole AT&T/Tethering issue though, it's not just that AT&T might have wanted to release a similar app themselves, or even similar functionality, but that they objected to their <i>network</i> being used that way (as opposed to the devices on the network.

The difference between iPhone and android, and what would make android more 'open source', is the potential for getting apps from places other than the officially-sanctioned 1st-party app store.
One could, presumably, still get the tethering app installed on an android (without the equivalent of jailbreaking), and even use it, but it would be against the ToS that were agreed to.

As a side rant, It'd be awesome if tethering were just out-and-out allowed, even if with only a limited bandwidth. Sometimes a tiny screen doesn't do it, and one wants to use a laptop or whatever. Or, there could be some program one wishes to use, which has no equivalent on the phone.

**g3k_** · April 6, 2009, 15:17

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

Originally posted by YenTheFirst View Post

hmm. As I understand the whole AT&T/Tethering issue though, it's not just that AT&T might have wanted to release a similar app themselves, or even similar functionality, but that they objected to their <i>network</i> being used that way (as opposed to the devices on the network.

The difference between iPhone and android, and what would make android more 'open source', is the potential for getting apps from places other than the officially-sanctioned 1st-party app store.
One could, presumably, still get the tethering app installed on an android (without the equivalent of jailbreaking), and even use it, but it would be against the ToS that were agreed to.

As a side rant, It'd be awesome if tethering were just out-and-out allowed, even if with only a limited bandwidth. Sometimes a tiny screen doesn't do it, and one wants to use a laptop or whatever. Or, there could be some program one wishes to use, which has no equivalent on the phone.

AT&T plans on putting out tethering and charging more for the iphone. (the 3.0 release in june) There has always been tethering apps, but you needed to jailbreak your phone.

I thought of this thread when I read a story on Ars Techinca, but I was on a jobsite and it was through RSS, so: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...st-viruses.ars

tl;dr: unified phone OS breeds exploits, viruses, malware, etc.

**Voltage Spike** · April 6, 2009, 23:23

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

Originally posted by YenTheFirst View Post

As a side rant, It'd be awesome if tethering were just out-and-out allowed, even if with only a limited bandwidth.

At least one provider out there offers unlimited CDMA bandwidth in major cities for $40 a month with no contract. The connection is just as good as the nearly-twice-as-expensive providers without a $0.25 per megabyte after 5 GB (with no way to check usage) fee.

They do, however, forbid "automated machine-to-machine" connections in their Acceptable Use Policy. It made me chuckle the first time I read it...

**Deviant Ollam** · April 7, 2009, 06:48

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

Originally posted by Voltage Spike View Post

At least one provider out there offers unlimited CDMA bandwidth in major cities for $40 a month with no contract. The connection is just as good as the nearly-twice-as-expensive providers without a $0.25 per megabyte after 5 GB (with no way to check usage) fee.

may we ask who this is and if you're talking about just internet to the phone or also internet to other devices like a laptop?

heh, is this a jailbroken iPhone with the "act a wireless access point" app? (didn't think iPhone was CDMA, thus that's not likely to be it)

**afterburn188** · April 7, 2009, 10:42

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

For those interested, I believe the major CDMA cell networks are Verizon and Sprint while the AT&T and T-Mobile networks are GSM.

In the spirit of open source (and as a side note) it should be noted that the GSM standard is an open standard where as CDMA is a proprietary standard owned by Qualcomm (IS-96). Some reports have shown CDMA to be a superior technology (1996 report to IEEE ) but due to the licensing costs, many decided to go with GSM. Although an open source equivalent hardware platforms may be more difficult than an open source software platform, it is sometimes worth looking into what parts go into the devices one uses. If anything it sometimes explains where the cost comes from...

**Voltage Spike** · April 7, 2009, 13:50

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

Originally posted by Deviant Ollam View Post

may we ask who this is and if you're talking about just internet to the phone or also internet to other devices like a laptop?

I was referring specifically to Cricket Broadband (who have a well-deserved disrespect for their customer service/technical support), but their service has been amazing (especially considering the price). They filter GRE packets (grrr!) and you are only covered in major cities, but no one else seems to come close in terms of price and terms.

They use a data modem, not tethering, but then I prefer it that way.

While I'm not an expert on these technologies, I'll throw in my two cents for those that are interested.

Originally posted by afterburn188

In the spirit of open source (and as a side note) it should be noted that the GSM standard is an open standard where as CDMA is a proprietary standard owned by Qualcomm (IS-96). Some reports have shown CDMA to be a superior technology (1996 report to IEEE ) but due to the licensing costs, many decided to go with GSM. Although an open source equivalent hardware platforms may be more difficult than an open source software platform, it is sometimes worth looking into what parts go into the devices one uses. If anything it sometimes explains where the cost comes from...

GSM isn't really an open standard, but a) it is the de-facto world standard (I'd guess this has something to do with Qualcomm's strict control of their Hedy Lamarr-inspired, US government developed technology) and not everyone respects all IP rights, b) GSM providers have typically been more friendly toward customers giving people the sense of open-ness, and c) the SIM card allows people to swap out their telephones easily (which is another contributor to the "open" perception).

In theory CDMA is better than GSM because it scales better, but in practice it:

Requires more power (by virtue of transmitting all the time rather than GSM time slicing)
Scales better primarily due to the use of codecs that scale to lower bit rates
Requires tricky power/timing management that is almost more trouble than it is worth

CDMA is a very cool technology, and a lot of people were moving toward using it just a few years ago. I believe T-Mobile, a major GSM provider, started rolling out CDMA technology under the UMTS flag.

These days, though, pretty much everyone (including Verizon and Sprint) is moving toward OFDM for the next generation of equipment (namely, LTE as well as 802.11n). OFDM is also really interesting, but I haven't sat down to work my way through the math yet (which is, to my mind, slightly more complicated because it is smeared across the dimensions of both frequency and time).

Of course, it's been a little over a year since I looked into this stuff so do your own research.

Oh, and I was serious about Hedy Lamarr.

**Thorn** · April 7, 2009, 15:07

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

Originally posted by Voltage Spike View Post

Oh, and I was serious about Hedy Lamarr.

But of course you were! Every good hacker of wireless tech should know about Hedy Lamar. Brains, frequency hopping, and early German soft porn all in one beautiful package. Who could ask for anything more?

**afterburn188** · April 7, 2009, 15:52

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

Originally posted by Voltage Spike View Post

While I'm not an expert on these technologies, I'll throw in my two cents for those that are interested.

GSM isn't really an open standard, but a) it is the de-facto world standard (I'd guess this has something to do with Qualcomm's strict control of their Hedy Lamarr-inspired, US government developed technology) and not everyone respects all IP rights, b) GSM providers have typically been more friendly toward customers giving people the sense of open-ness, and c) the SIM card allows people to swap out their telephones easily (which is another contributor to the "open" perception).

I guess I should have rephrased better. The "open standard"ness that I was referring to was the ability to obtain an IP core (legally) and be paying for the right to use that particular GSM core, not the right to use the GSM standard. You can also purchase GSM IP cores for DSP chips in which you are given the source instead of a binary block. If you want to build your own GSM core, you can go right ahead and do so. The equivalent in CDMA is either much more expensive or not possible. I guess they wouldn't want those back doors being found out now would they?

Originally posted by Voltage Spike View Post

These days, though, pretty much everyone (including Verizon and Sprint) is moving toward OFDM for the next generation of equipment (namely, LTE as well as 802.11n). OFDM is also really interesting, but I haven't sat down to work my way through the math yet (which is, to my mind, slightly more complicated because it is smeared across the dimensions of both frequency and time).

Of course, it's been a little over a year since I looked into this stuff so do your own research.

While I am not a signal processing expert, I have learned a bit about OFDM (and sadly have had to go through the math). The push towards OFDM comes mostly from it's ability to more efficiently use the spectrum, and it's ability to tolerate higher levels of noise. The combination of these two will allow for higher sustained data rates. OFDM was originally designed to over come situations where one had to deal with lots of interference from other sources (like a mobile device working in the ISM bands). The major benefit it possesses is the ability to be selective about the frequencies of its sub-carriers which allows it to be more effective than typical spread spectrum techniques. An example of it's use is in many home power line ethernet systems in dealing with the AC line's harmonics. While it is great for all these things it suffers from multi-path and has a hard time dealing with it. The math is not overly complicated but the logical progression of steps it was adds to the confusion. Again I'm no expert on it but if anyone is interested (be the math or the theory), I suggest looking into Dr. Len Cimini, formally of Bell Labs. He has quite a few powerpoint presentations out which go over in great detail the history, math, and concepts of OFDM and how he solved many of the initial problems.

Anyways...I'll stop thread jacking now...

**YenTheFirst** · April 9, 2009, 22:20

Re: Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

I bought a new phone today, and was reminded why it was I hated Verizon wireless. ;)

I bought a new Motorola V750. I decided to try and use one of the advertised features, MP3 ringtones. whoo fancy. The thing is so locked down and crippled, as to be completely frustrating to use. The interface is actually worse than the older version I had on my older phone.

Bluetooth sync has OBEX, but prefers only to serve files, not have them written back.

I'm downloading some 3rd party tools tomorrow, I'll see if I can't get it doing what I want. If they work , I'll probably do a bit more hacking/modding.

Having to download 3rd party tools to accomplish something that was in the original design of the phone . . .sheesh.

Announcement

Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

Phone Hacking [Conventional Hacking]

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment