In-App Purchase Vulnerability to Be Fixed in iOS 6; Apple Offers Best Practices to Developers
As noticed by 9to5Mac, Apple has offered developers a series of best practices to prevent the In-App Purchase vulnerability, as well as promising a full fix in iOS 6. The advisement was sent to developers in an email today.
CNET was issued this statement by Apple:
"We recommend developers follow best practices at developer.apple.com to help ensure they are not vulnerable to fraudulent In-App purchases," Apple spokesperson Tom Neumayr told CNET. "This will also be addressed with iOS 6."
Apple issued this note to developers on the iOS Developer webpage, along with a series of suggestions to help verify that in-app purchases are legitimate:
A vulnerability has been discovered in iOS 5.1 and earlier related to validating in-app purchase receipts by connecting to the App Store server directly from an iOS device. An attacker can alter the DNS table to redirect these requests to a server controlled by the attacker. Using a certificate authority controlled by the attacker and installed on the device by the user, the attacker can issue a SSL certificate that fraudulently identifies the attacker’s server as an App Store server. When this fraudulent server is asked to validate an invalid receipt, it responds as if the receipt were valid.
News of the in-app purchase hack broke a week ago, and Apple has made several attempts to prevent users using the hack. It allows users to avoid paying for in-app purchases by using a third-party server as a "man-in-the-middle" attack. Apple now includes the UDID identifier in in-app purchase receipts in an attempt to increase the security of purchases.
As previously rumored, the next-generation iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro Max will feature a unified volume button and a mute button, according to leaked CAD images shared in a video on the Chinese version of TikTok and posted to Twitter by ShrimpApplePro.
Instead of separate buttons for volume up and volume down, the iPhone 15 Pro models are expected to have a single elongated button for...
Apple says iOS 16.4 is coming in the spring, which began this week. In his Sunday newsletter, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said the update should be released "in the next three weeks or so," meaning a public release is likely in late March or early April.
iOS 16.4 remains in beta testing and introduces a handful of new features and changes for the iPhone. Below, we have recapped five new features ...
The iOS 16.4 update that is set to be released to the public in the near future includes voice isolation for cellular calls, according to notes that Apple shared today.
Apple says that Voice Isolation will prioritize your voice and block out the ambient noise around you, making for clearer phone calls where you can better hear the person you're chatting with and vice versa.
A first-generation iPhone still sealed inside its box sold for $54,904 at auction, which is more than $54,000 over the original $599 price tag of the device when it was released in 2007.
The original iPhone was put up for sale by RR Auction on behalf of a former Apple employee who purchased it back when it first came out. Back in February, an original, sealed iPhone sold for over $63,000,...
The iOS 16.4 release candidate version that was provided to developers today appears to hint at a new set of AirPods that could be coming in the near future. According to @aaronp613, the beta features references to AirPods that have a model number of A3048 and an AirPods case with a model number of A2968.
There have been no rumors that new AirPods are on the horizon, and it is early for...
Apple today seeded the release candidate versions of upcoming iOS 16.4 and iPadOS 16.4 updates to developers for testing purposes, with the software coming a week after the launch of the fourth betas. The RCs mark the final version of the software that will be provided to the public in the near future. Registered developers are able to download the iOS 16.4 and iPadOS 16.4 updates...
Google today began allowing users to sign up to use Bard, its AI-powered chatbot that rivals Microsoft's Bing chatbot. First announced back in February, Bard is an experimental conversational AI service for Google Search.
Those interested in Bard can join Google's waitlist to get access, and some users have reported getting invitation emails just hours after signing up. There are a long list ...
Samsung today kicked off a special "Discover Samsung" event, which will be a week-long savings event focusing on Samsung monitors, smartphones, TVs, appliances, and more. While some deals will stick around the entire week (through March 26), others will refresh every day.
Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with Samsung. When you click a link and make a purchase, we may receive a small...
Top Rated Comments
The way I basically see it, is the in-app purchases (especially games) feed on a user's craving for "more" out of the game. When a user realizes they cannot advance in a game or achieve a goal in the game without the in-app purchase, they will tap a button and charge a fee to their Apple Store account. A few of these "taps" and the user feels comfortable using this feature....and before you know it, they have tacked on $200 in fees for a $2.99 or FREE game download originally. The whole thing feeds on an addictive-nature to get you "hooked" on using the in-app purchases with the game....and it's making developer's bookoos of money. Now that a hacker has circumvented this, devs are crying about it, but the truth of the matter is in-app purchases are an evil, luring, deceptive, scheming beast altogether to sucker the public into forking over their wallets!!!
And that, my friends, is the reason I refuse to download and use apps and games with the in-app purchase feature. It's a gimmick made by *greedy greedy* developer types, and I am not buying into any of that junk, at all. Just not worth it.
It's a free market. I have the power to choose how I develop and sell my IP. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.
And not all IAP use is of this sort, some of it is for removing ads etc. And in some cases the games (which are what commonly use this ploy) are still playable although at a slower rate without playing. Or like Temple Run let you earn in game coins to buy the enhancements
If you're enjoying a developers hard work and not paying for it - then you are stealing that developers time. It'd be akin to going to a barbers - getting a haircut and not paying for it... You've not stolen anything physical from him, but you have stolen his time from him - he gave you a service, you didn't pay.
You can try to justify that however you like, but that barber gave you a service you didnt pay for, and as such you have just stolen from him. Same goes for software development - people spend their time to make something for you to enjoy - if you benefit from it and havent paid for it, that is theft. Pure and simple.
If you worked for your boss for a month, only for him to refuse to pay you at the end of that.. And just laughed it off as "piracy" - how would that make you feel? He's got the benefit of your work but refused to pay you for it.
I put a LOT of time and effort into my software - if i cant put food on the table because people are ripping my work off... then i'll stop doing it.. If everyone did that - then you'd have nothing left to pirate.
I guess that's just the way the self-entitled nature of todays kids are...
Never buy a game that isn’t worth the price you paid, “right out of the box"; reviews will help, and if you get ripped off I fee your pain.
And if the game IS worth what you paid, then there’s no need to get any more value, for free, out of the programmer’s sweat and dreams.
Therefore, buy the add-ons if they’re worth it, skip them if they’re not, but don’t steal them.
Some companies charge absurd prices for their games. Some do that for their IAP. Skip those companies, rather than spreading hacks that hurt everyone.
You’re making the mistake of assuming that ALL IAP works the same and is a rip-off. It’s not.
And how do you know whether a developer is greedy or not? Maybe they should include all 500 levels in the original $1 game, say, and not just 200. But do we know what it cost him to develop that app and those levels? Do we know what his rent, food and health care cost? Are we asking him to give us more for free than we’d be willing to in his shoes?
I think it’s fair for a developer to set any kind of business model they want, as long as they’re honest about what it is. You can then skip those games that aren’t worth it to you.