Re:Apple betrays the iPhone's business hopes
by jasongullickson on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @01:15PM
(#824246)
Did Apple explicitly claim that they were encrypting the stored files?
Re:Apple betrays the iPhone's business hopes
by tvon on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @01:28PM
(#824269)
It sounds like the iPhone was telling the Exchange servers on the protocol level that it supported encryption. That's what I'm getting from this article anyway.
Re:Apple betrays the iPhone's business hopes
by jasongullickson on Wednesday September 16, 2009 @09:51AM
(#825777)
I fear we're both working from second (or third)-hand information here and it's time to do some homework to find out the truth, but let me add this one thought.
This may sound like a stretch, and Apple themselves have decided that it's not sufficient, but while the files themselves my not be encrypted the filesystem of the iPhone itself is protected from all but deliberate (and possibly illegal) fiddling by third-parties. In this way it's not completely dishonest for the iPhone's exchange client to report to the Exchange server that the local files are secured.
Like I said it's a stretch, but perhaps the original implementation wasn't pure malice/ignorance on Apple's part.
Re:Apple betrays the iPhone's business hopes
by pyre on Tuesday September 15, 2009 @03:01PM
(#824504)
I don't know if they specifically said that they supported it, but he claims that the iPhone software was reporting to Exchange Server that it did support it, and Apple was claiming full Exchange support (while not specifically talking about encryption).
He's saying that Apple betrayed trust by implementing secure feature insecurely (while claiming that it was working correctly) and when they decided to actually do something about it, they just quietly pulled out the rug from under their users. There was no Apple announcement or apology. Just a checklist item burying deep in a list of changes in an OS update. That's why he says 'double betrayal.'