<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_27_1249209</id>
	<title>Security Firms Can't Protect iPhone From Threats</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259329560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>nk497 writes <i>"F-Secure researchers are calling attention to the fact that it's <a href="http://www.itpro.co.uk/618154/security-firms-cannot-protect-the-iphone-from-threats">impossible to run third-party anti-virus on iPhones</a>, because the SDK doesn't allow for it. It's a problem, as they claim malware will start to target the phone. 'None of the existing anti-virus vendors can make one, without help from Apple,' chief research officer Mikko Hypponen said. 'Apple hasn't been too interested in developing antivirus solutions for the iPhone, because there are no viruses, which of course, isn't exactly true.' At the moment, the only worms faced by the iPhone have targeted unlocked, jailbroken devices &mdash; so Apple's not too bothered protecting users of such phones."</i> While Apple claims that the iPhone's closed nature offers protection to its users, and security vendors maneuver for a piece of a market now closed to them, clearly both sides are pushing their own self-interest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>nk497 writes " F-Secure researchers are calling attention to the fact that it 's impossible to run third-party anti-virus on iPhones , because the SDK does n't allow for it .
It 's a problem , as they claim malware will start to target the phone .
'None of the existing anti-virus vendors can make one , without help from Apple, ' chief research officer Mikko Hypponen said .
'Apple has n't been too interested in developing antivirus solutions for the iPhone , because there are no viruses , which of course , is n't exactly true .
' At the moment , the only worms faced by the iPhone have targeted unlocked , jailbroken devices    so Apple 's not too bothered protecting users of such phones .
" While Apple claims that the iPhone 's closed nature offers protection to its users , and security vendors maneuver for a piece of a market now closed to them , clearly both sides are pushing their own self-interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nk497 writes "F-Secure researchers are calling attention to the fact that it's impossible to run third-party anti-virus on iPhones, because the SDK doesn't allow for it.
It's a problem, as they claim malware will start to target the phone.
'None of the existing anti-virus vendors can make one, without help from Apple,' chief research officer Mikko Hypponen said.
'Apple hasn't been too interested in developing antivirus solutions for the iPhone, because there are no viruses, which of course, isn't exactly true.
' At the moment, the only worms faced by the iPhone have targeted unlocked, jailbroken devices — so Apple's not too bothered protecting users of such phones.
" While Apple claims that the iPhone's closed nature offers protection to its users, and security vendors maneuver for a piece of a market now closed to them, clearly both sides are pushing their own self-interest.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247268</id>
	<title>Restoring from backup is easy</title>
	<author>sockonafish</author>
	<datestamp>1259349420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If my phone got exploited I'd just restore from my latest backup, it might take all of twenty minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If my phone got exploited I 'd just restore from my latest backup , it might take all of twenty minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If my phone got exploited I'd just restore from my latest backup, it might take all of twenty minutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30248008</id>
	<title>Re:F-Secure smells money</title>
	<author>BearRanger</author>
	<datestamp>1259353800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if Apple allows it then they can sell anti-virus to people who don't need it.  For instance, most iPhone users.  That's what they really want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if Apple allows it then they can sell anti-virus to people who do n't need it .
For instance , most iPhone users .
That 's what they really want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if Apple allows it then they can sell anti-virus to people who don't need it.
For instance, most iPhone users.
That's what they really want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245746</id>
	<title>Software that destroys your data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259339220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an app for that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an app for that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an app for that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245596</id>
	<title>Re:It's closed so it's perfect</title>
	<author>SilverJets</author>
	<datestamp>1259338500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apple opens up the iPhone to allow third-party anti-virus programs to run, guess what will happen?  All of a sudden there will be viruses for the iPhone.  Gee, I wonder why Apple doesn't want to do that?</p><p>No sympathy from me for people using hacked iPhones and getting trojans since they knew the risks when they hacked it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple opens up the iPhone to allow third-party anti-virus programs to run , guess what will happen ?
All of a sudden there will be viruses for the iPhone .
Gee , I wonder why Apple does n't want to do that ? No sympathy from me for people using hacked iPhones and getting trojans since they knew the risks when they hacked it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple opens up the iPhone to allow third-party anti-virus programs to run, guess what will happen?
All of a sudden there will be viruses for the iPhone.
Gee, I wonder why Apple doesn't want to do that?No sympathy from me for people using hacked iPhones and getting trojans since they knew the risks when they hacked it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30246326</id>
	<title>All I heard was ....</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1259343000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH !!</p><p>something flying over our heads?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH !
! something flying over our heads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH !
!something flying over our heads?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247720</id>
	<title>There are no viruses for OS X, none.</title>
	<author>wzinc</author>
	<datestamp>1259352120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are no viruses for OS X, none. Maybe, in the future, there will be, but there are none now. The only reason there are any 'viruses' for the iPhone is b/c jail-broken ones all have the same ssh password. Change it, and the 'virus' can't hurt you.</p><p>The best way to get viruses on a Mac is to install Windows on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no viruses for OS X , none .
Maybe , in the future , there will be , but there are none now .
The only reason there are any 'viruses ' for the iPhone is b/c jail-broken ones all have the same ssh password .
Change it , and the 'virus ' ca n't hurt you.The best way to get viruses on a Mac is to install Windows on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no viruses for OS X, none.
Maybe, in the future, there will be, but there are none now.
The only reason there are any 'viruses' for the iPhone is b/c jail-broken ones all have the same ssh password.
Change it, and the 'virus' can't hurt you.The best way to get viruses on a Mac is to install Windows on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245586</id>
	<title>Re:Security Through Obscurity Never Works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"While Apple claims that the iPhone's closed nature offers protection to its users"</p></div><p>Way to screw up the quote.  It's not secure because it's closed and thus nobody knows how it works, it's secure because it's a closed platform where you can't even run a virus without getting it signed by Apple. (And no matter what your opinion is about Apple, that's not really in their self-interest.)</p><p>If I took a Windows PC and placed it in a Faraday cage inside of a bank vault, then that would also be quite a secure system, even though it's still, you know, Windows.  Of course, it wouldn't be terribly useful.</p><p>The security vulnerability profile of a closed system like the iPhone is similar to that of any other consumer electronics device, not a real computer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" While Apple claims that the iPhone 's closed nature offers protection to its users " Way to screw up the quote .
It 's not secure because it 's closed and thus nobody knows how it works , it 's secure because it 's a closed platform where you ca n't even run a virus without getting it signed by Apple .
( And no matter what your opinion is about Apple , that 's not really in their self-interest .
) If I took a Windows PC and placed it in a Faraday cage inside of a bank vault , then that would also be quite a secure system , even though it 's still , you know , Windows .
Of course , it would n't be terribly useful.The security vulnerability profile of a closed system like the iPhone is similar to that of any other consumer electronics device , not a real computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"While Apple claims that the iPhone's closed nature offers protection to its users"Way to screw up the quote.
It's not secure because it's closed and thus nobody knows how it works, it's secure because it's a closed platform where you can't even run a virus without getting it signed by Apple.
(And no matter what your opinion is about Apple, that's not really in their self-interest.
)If I took a Windows PC and placed it in a Faraday cage inside of a bank vault, then that would also be quite a secure system, even though it's still, you know, Windows.
Of course, it wouldn't be terribly useful.The security vulnerability profile of a closed system like the iPhone is similar to that of any other consumer electronics device, not a real computer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247856</id>
	<title>Re:F-Secure smells money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259353020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Additionally, the injection point for bad code on iPhones is the desktop computer -- so as long as the antivirus solution for the PC hosting iTunes can detect malicious iPhone packages, most of the problem is solved.</p><p>Of course, at this point, if a binary is known to be bad than Apple will pull it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , the injection point for bad code on iPhones is the desktop computer -- so as long as the antivirus solution for the PC hosting iTunes can detect malicious iPhone packages , most of the problem is solved.Of course , at this point , if a binary is known to be bad than Apple will pull it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, the injection point for bad code on iPhones is the desktop computer -- so as long as the antivirus solution for the PC hosting iTunes can detect malicious iPhone packages, most of the problem is solved.Of course, at this point, if a binary is known to be bad than Apple will pull it anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245212</id>
	<title>Re:It's closed so it's perfect</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1259335560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at it the other way:  it's perfect, until it's not closed.</p><p>What I mean is that Apple is doing the right thing.  They should continue to deny anti-virus vendors from selling their warez, at least until there's a proven threat.  And so far, there are none.  From Apple's viewpoint, it's a great marketing tool to be so confident in their security that they won't compromise it by letting AV software on the platform.  And for everyone who knows just how crappy AV software usually is (and how bad it drags down performance) it really is good news.</p><p>Seriously.  As long as Apple keeps patching the holes the jail breakers use (which they seem to do within days) there simply are no credible threats.  Oddly enough, this means the jail breakers are actually their best allies, in that they absolutely have the strongest motivations to hack the iPhone; and since their jailbreaks must necessarily be public to be useful, Apple can keep in lockstep with them.</p><p>That also means Apple must continue to keep it tightly closed, and never permit leaky crapware like Flash to run on it.  Which indirectly benefits the rest of us, as that means sites that want to play nice with iPhones may provide usable Flash-free alternatives.  We can hope, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at it the other way : it 's perfect , until it 's not closed.What I mean is that Apple is doing the right thing .
They should continue to deny anti-virus vendors from selling their warez , at least until there 's a proven threat .
And so far , there are none .
From Apple 's viewpoint , it 's a great marketing tool to be so confident in their security that they wo n't compromise it by letting AV software on the platform .
And for everyone who knows just how crappy AV software usually is ( and how bad it drags down performance ) it really is good news.Seriously .
As long as Apple keeps patching the holes the jail breakers use ( which they seem to do within days ) there simply are no credible threats .
Oddly enough , this means the jail breakers are actually their best allies , in that they absolutely have the strongest motivations to hack the iPhone ; and since their jailbreaks must necessarily be public to be useful , Apple can keep in lockstep with them.That also means Apple must continue to keep it tightly closed , and never permit leaky crapware like Flash to run on it .
Which indirectly benefits the rest of us , as that means sites that want to play nice with iPhones may provide usable Flash-free alternatives .
We can hope , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at it the other way:  it's perfect, until it's not closed.What I mean is that Apple is doing the right thing.
They should continue to deny anti-virus vendors from selling their warez, at least until there's a proven threat.
And so far, there are none.
From Apple's viewpoint, it's a great marketing tool to be so confident in their security that they won't compromise it by letting AV software on the platform.
And for everyone who knows just how crappy AV software usually is (and how bad it drags down performance) it really is good news.Seriously.
As long as Apple keeps patching the holes the jail breakers use (which they seem to do within days) there simply are no credible threats.
Oddly enough, this means the jail breakers are actually their best allies, in that they absolutely have the strongest motivations to hack the iPhone; and since their jailbreaks must necessarily be public to be useful, Apple can keep in lockstep with them.That also means Apple must continue to keep it tightly closed, and never permit leaky crapware like Flash to run on it.
Which indirectly benefits the rest of us, as that means sites that want to play nice with iPhones may provide usable Flash-free alternatives.
We can hope, anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30249854</id>
	<title>Re:The new logic of security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259321100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bullshit (not that you seem to agree that jailing is required for security, so I don't think I am disagreeing with you). See Android's security policy. You can install anything and the apps you install are properly sandboxed. They have to request permissions on install in order to get them in a system somewhat similar to a user-friendly presentation of AppArmor permissions (it might even use AppArmor or SELinux, I'm not sure). That is the right way to do security: explicitly tell the user in a clear and understandable way what permissions an application has (preferably with a Firefox unverified HTTPS type interface for installing applications with overly high permissions... just defining "overly high" can be difficult, if not impossible). There is no excuse for a game to know my phone's phone number or access its contact list or sent texts (not sure exactly which of those are possible on the iPhone) other than lazy OS programmers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit ( not that you seem to agree that jailing is required for security , so I do n't think I am disagreeing with you ) .
See Android 's security policy .
You can install anything and the apps you install are properly sandboxed .
They have to request permissions on install in order to get them in a system somewhat similar to a user-friendly presentation of AppArmor permissions ( it might even use AppArmor or SELinux , I 'm not sure ) .
That is the right way to do security : explicitly tell the user in a clear and understandable way what permissions an application has ( preferably with a Firefox unverified HTTPS type interface for installing applications with overly high permissions... just defining " overly high " can be difficult , if not impossible ) .
There is no excuse for a game to know my phone 's phone number or access its contact list or sent texts ( not sure exactly which of those are possible on the iPhone ) other than lazy OS programmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit (not that you seem to agree that jailing is required for security, so I don't think I am disagreeing with you).
See Android's security policy.
You can install anything and the apps you install are properly sandboxed.
They have to request permissions on install in order to get them in a system somewhat similar to a user-friendly presentation of AppArmor permissions (it might even use AppArmor or SELinux, I'm not sure).
That is the right way to do security: explicitly tell the user in a clear and understandable way what permissions an application has (preferably with a Firefox unverified HTTPS type interface for installing applications with overly high permissions... just defining "overly high" can be difficult, if not impossible).
There is no excuse for a game to know my phone's phone number or access its contact list or sent texts (not sure exactly which of those are possible on the iPhone) other than lazy OS programmers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245488</id>
	<title>Re:It's closed so it's perfect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259337660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The security risk reported until now is only on jailbroken iphones.</p><p>The anti-virus companies are saying they can't run on the iphone. Not true, they can run on the jailbroken phones whenever they want. Now do they want to do that? I don't think so.</p><p>What they really want is that the normal iphones become insecure, and then they can scam money from the masses!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The security risk reported until now is only on jailbroken iphones.The anti-virus companies are saying they ca n't run on the iphone .
Not true , they can run on the jailbroken phones whenever they want .
Now do they want to do that ?
I do n't think so.What they really want is that the normal iphones become insecure , and then they can scam money from the masses !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The security risk reported until now is only on jailbroken iphones.The anti-virus companies are saying they can't run on the iphone.
Not true, they can run on the jailbroken phones whenever they want.
Now do they want to do that?
I don't think so.What they really want is that the normal iphones become insecure, and then they can scam money from the masses!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245078</id>
	<title>FUD</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1259334120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FUD<br> <br>
For those new to the internet, that would be Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. This sort of garbage would be a pretty classic example of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FUD For those new to the internet , that would be Fear , Uncertainty , and Doubt .
This sort of garbage would be a pretty classic example of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUD 
For those new to the internet, that would be Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
This sort of garbage would be a pretty classic example of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247120</id>
	<title>Re:It's closed so it's perfect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259348520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Even running Windows 7, with UAC on, non-administrative account 99.999\% time, always a non-IE browser, and very strict on what I run as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe and where I download them, ad-aware just found some wind32 trojan.</p></div></blockquote><p>Funnily enough the band-aid that is supposed to fix the broken system* isn't mentioned in your little line-up.  If only you had used that band-aid *before* very strictly running things...</p><p>Maybe you can do us all a favor and backtrack what, exactly, you ran that got you that supposed malware, so the rest of us can stay the hell away from it.. instead of karmawhoring with the usual "anti-virus is a flawed concept" and anti-Windows rhetoric.</p><p>* tip: the part of the system that is broken is not your computer with Windows 7, UAC on, non-admin account with non-IE browser.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even running Windows 7 , with UAC on , non-administrative account 99.999 \ % time , always a non-IE browser , and very strict on what I run as .exe and where I download them , ad-aware just found some wind32 trojan.Funnily enough the band-aid that is supposed to fix the broken system * is n't mentioned in your little line-up .
If only you had used that band-aid * before * very strictly running things...Maybe you can do us all a favor and backtrack what , exactly , you ran that got you that supposed malware , so the rest of us can stay the hell away from it.. instead of karmawhoring with the usual " anti-virus is a flawed concept " and anti-Windows rhetoric .
* tip : the part of the system that is broken is not your computer with Windows 7 , UAC on , non-admin account with non-IE browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even running Windows 7, with UAC on, non-administrative account 99.999\% time, always a non-IE browser, and very strict on what I run as .exe and where I download them, ad-aware just found some wind32 trojan.Funnily enough the band-aid that is supposed to fix the broken system* isn't mentioned in your little line-up.
If only you had used that band-aid *before* very strictly running things...Maybe you can do us all a favor and backtrack what, exactly, you ran that got you that supposed malware, so the rest of us can stay the hell away from it.. instead of karmawhoring with the usual "anti-virus is a flawed concept" and anti-Windows rhetoric.
* tip: the part of the system that is broken is not your computer with Windows 7, UAC on, non-admin account with non-IE browser.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245194</id>
	<title>News at 11</title>
	<author>damaki</author>
	<datestamp>1259335440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>F-Secure cannot get money out of iPhone users, therefore whines and tries to scare executives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>F-Secure can not get money out of iPhone users , therefore whines and tries to scare executives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>F-Secure cannot get money out of iPhone users, therefore whines and tries to scare executives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245138</id>
	<title>Re:F-Secure smells money</title>
	<author>wickerprints</author>
	<datestamp>1259334900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I think is most telling about that quote is how an AV company has blurred the distinction between a "virus" and what basically amounts to a default password security hole.  Sorry, but how does that make me want to trust you to run software on my device if you don't care to demonstrate you know the difference between these two types of attack?</p><p>The only reason why the jailbroken phones were vulnerable was because the default SSH password was not changed.  No amount of AV is going to protect against a user's stupidity.  This statement by F-Secure is about the money-making opportunity they're dying to exploit, and they're clearly riding the wave of negative publicity surrounding the closed platform nature of the iPhone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I think is most telling about that quote is how an AV company has blurred the distinction between a " virus " and what basically amounts to a default password security hole .
Sorry , but how does that make me want to trust you to run software on my device if you do n't care to demonstrate you know the difference between these two types of attack ? The only reason why the jailbroken phones were vulnerable was because the default SSH password was not changed .
No amount of AV is going to protect against a user 's stupidity .
This statement by F-Secure is about the money-making opportunity they 're dying to exploit , and they 're clearly riding the wave of negative publicity surrounding the closed platform nature of the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I think is most telling about that quote is how an AV company has blurred the distinction between a "virus" and what basically amounts to a default password security hole.
Sorry, but how does that make me want to trust you to run software on my device if you don't care to demonstrate you know the difference between these two types of attack?The only reason why the jailbroken phones were vulnerable was because the default SSH password was not changed.
No amount of AV is going to protect against a user's stupidity.
This statement by F-Secure is about the money-making opportunity they're dying to exploit, and they're clearly riding the wave of negative publicity surrounding the closed platform nature of the iPhone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30248330</id>
	<title>Security?  Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259313000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Security firms?  You mean like Symantec, Trend Micro, etc.?  How about Microsoft's own latest security offerings?  Why don't you ask those guys why their products don't detect Specter 360 or CNE?  This is commercial spyware and is invisible to anti virus and anti spyware products from all these companies.</p><p>See for yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security firms ?
You mean like Symantec , Trend Micro , etc. ?
How about Microsoft 's own latest security offerings ?
Why do n't you ask those guys why their products do n't detect Specter 360 or CNE ?
This is commercial spyware and is invisible to anti virus and anti spyware products from all these companies.See for yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security firms?
You mean like Symantec, Trend Micro, etc.?
How about Microsoft's own latest security offerings?
Why don't you ask those guys why their products don't detect Specter 360 or CNE?
This is commercial spyware and is invisible to anti virus and anti spyware products from all these companies.See for yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245314</id>
	<title>blackberries?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259336340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't have a Blackberry, so I don't know the answer. But are there AV programs available for the various Blackberries out there? Or are they just singling out Apple and the iPhone because it's convenient to do so?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have a Blackberry , so I do n't know the answer .
But are there AV programs available for the various Blackberries out there ?
Or are they just singling out Apple and the iPhone because it 's convenient to do so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have a Blackberry, so I don't know the answer.
But are there AV programs available for the various Blackberries out there?
Or are they just singling out Apple and the iPhone because it's convenient to do so?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986</id>
	<title>It's closed so it's perfect</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1259333340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it's from Apple.</p><p>So it's doubly perfect. It's not like Mac OS has any security problems either.</p><p>So nothing to see here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's from Apple.So it 's doubly perfect .
It 's not like Mac OS has any security problems either.So nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's from Apple.So it's doubly perfect.
It's not like Mac OS has any security problems either.So nothing to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245768</id>
	<title>Neither do game consoles!</title>
	<author>ruiner13</author>
	<datestamp>1259339340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh my God!  My PS3, 360 and Wii are on the internet and they don't have anti-virus, too!  What are we going to do!<br> <br>Seriously, this is news for nerds?  Some morons jailbreak their phones, leaving SSH with a default password, they get hacked, and suddenly A/V firms think they have an "in"?  You could install every A/V program on the planet on a windows PC, but if you install SSH with a default password, it will still get hacked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my God !
My PS3 , 360 and Wii are on the internet and they do n't have anti-virus , too !
What are we going to do !
Seriously , this is news for nerds ?
Some morons jailbreak their phones , leaving SSH with a default password , they get hacked , and suddenly A/V firms think they have an " in " ?
You could install every A/V program on the planet on a windows PC , but if you install SSH with a default password , it will still get hacked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my God!
My PS3, 360 and Wii are on the internet and they don't have anti-virus, too!
What are we going to do!
Seriously, this is news for nerds?
Some morons jailbreak their phones, leaving SSH with a default password, they get hacked, and suddenly A/V firms think they have an "in"?
You could install every A/V program on the planet on a windows PC, but if you install SSH with a default password, it will still get hacked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245086</id>
	<title>The new logic of security</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259334240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to be wary when using my crystal ball, but this time I want to make a prediction: This is an intended development, and we'll see more of it in the future. Jailed devices that are deemed intrinsically secure. People who dare to unlock their device not only open themselves up for infections, they also can't get any help to make their devices secure again because everyone who could or would offer them this help is locked out.</p><p>Now add laws that started to creep into our legislative where you're legally responsible for it if your device is insecure and doing something illegal.</p><p>In the long run, you will only be secure and not responsible for anything your device does if you don't mind not owning it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to be wary when using my crystal ball , but this time I want to make a prediction : This is an intended development , and we 'll see more of it in the future .
Jailed devices that are deemed intrinsically secure .
People who dare to unlock their device not only open themselves up for infections , they also ca n't get any help to make their devices secure again because everyone who could or would offer them this help is locked out.Now add laws that started to creep into our legislative where you 're legally responsible for it if your device is insecure and doing something illegal.In the long run , you will only be secure and not responsible for anything your device does if you do n't mind not owning it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to be wary when using my crystal ball, but this time I want to make a prediction: This is an intended development, and we'll see more of it in the future.
Jailed devices that are deemed intrinsically secure.
People who dare to unlock their device not only open themselves up for infections, they also can't get any help to make their devices secure again because everyone who could or would offer them this help is locked out.Now add laws that started to creep into our legislative where you're legally responsible for it if your device is insecure and doing something illegal.In the long run, you will only be secure and not responsible for anything your device does if you don't mind not owning it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30246170</id>
	<title>Anti-virus, Vista and the IPhone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259341860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This smacks to me very similarly to what happened originally with the pre-release Vista. MS was going to lock down the kernel and Norton and the other anti-virus anti-virus companies screeched monopoly and restriction of trade. The result was a weakened model so these parasites could continue to make and sell their products. Apple has never been a target of viruses for reasons that have been debated over and over. Mainly because of the spread of the iPhone, these companies now see a market and want in...  even if the product is not really needed. The anti-virus companies characterization of apple as uncaring of their users is a tactic. If I were Apple, I wouldn't care about the anti-virus companies either. Mind you if I was MS, I would have locked the kernel and told the av vendors to screw off. Apple is actually doing the right thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This smacks to me very similarly to what happened originally with the pre-release Vista .
MS was going to lock down the kernel and Norton and the other anti-virus anti-virus companies screeched monopoly and restriction of trade .
The result was a weakened model so these parasites could continue to make and sell their products .
Apple has never been a target of viruses for reasons that have been debated over and over .
Mainly because of the spread of the iPhone , these companies now see a market and want in... even if the product is not really needed .
The anti-virus companies characterization of apple as uncaring of their users is a tactic .
If I were Apple , I would n't care about the anti-virus companies either .
Mind you if I was MS , I would have locked the kernel and told the av vendors to screw off .
Apple is actually doing the right thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This smacks to me very similarly to what happened originally with the pre-release Vista.
MS was going to lock down the kernel and Norton and the other anti-virus anti-virus companies screeched monopoly and restriction of trade.
The result was a weakened model so these parasites could continue to make and sell their products.
Apple has never been a target of viruses for reasons that have been debated over and over.
Mainly because of the spread of the iPhone, these companies now see a market and want in...  even if the product is not really needed.
The anti-virus companies characterization of apple as uncaring of their users is a tactic.
If I were Apple, I wouldn't care about the anti-virus companies either.
Mind you if I was MS, I would have locked the kernel and told the av vendors to screw off.
Apple is actually doing the right thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245486</id>
	<title>"Whaaaaaa!"</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1259337660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all I hear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all I hear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all I hear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245462</id>
	<title>Re:I see an opening for Android...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1259337480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main problems are <br> <br>

A) No real way to get it to work on non-jailbroken iPhones. <br> <br>

B) The fact that every iPhone worm worked because of <b> having SSH running with a default password </b> that is basically equivalent to going to Defcon with a laptop with a stickynote saying "Username is user password is alpine" of course things are going to turn out badly. Everyone knows what the default SSH login is on iPhones (alpine) and when there are thousands of them running with the same password why are people surprised when bad things happen? <br> <br>

C) It is a lot easier to make a virus for Android than the iPhone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main problems are A ) No real way to get it to work on non-jailbroken iPhones .
B ) The fact that every iPhone worm worked because of having SSH running with a default password that is basically equivalent to going to Defcon with a laptop with a stickynote saying " Username is user password is alpine " of course things are going to turn out badly .
Everyone knows what the default SSH login is on iPhones ( alpine ) and when there are thousands of them running with the same password why are people surprised when bad things happen ?
C ) It is a lot easier to make a virus for Android than the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main problems are  

A) No real way to get it to work on non-jailbroken iPhones.
B) The fact that every iPhone worm worked because of  having SSH running with a default password  that is basically equivalent to going to Defcon with a laptop with a stickynote saying "Username is user password is alpine" of course things are going to turn out badly.
Everyone knows what the default SSH login is on iPhones (alpine) and when there are thousands of them running with the same password why are people surprised when bad things happen?
C) It is a lot easier to make a virus for Android than the iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245908</id>
	<title>Re:F-Secure smells money</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1259340120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can imagine what Norton Antivirus will look like on the iPhone. [...] battery life would be cut in half [...]</p> </div><p>Cutting my current iPhone its batterylife in half would mean that I need a USB connection in the toilet. Just to be able to browse Slashdot while taking a dump.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can imagine what Norton Antivirus will look like on the iPhone .
[ ... ] battery life would be cut in half [ ... ] Cutting my current iPhone its batterylife in half would mean that I need a USB connection in the toilet .
Just to be able to browse Slashdot while taking a dump .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can imagine what Norton Antivirus will look like on the iPhone.
[...] battery life would be cut in half [...] Cutting my current iPhone its batterylife in half would mean that I need a USB connection in the toilet.
Just to be able to browse Slashdot while taking a dump.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30248222</id>
	<title>Re:It's closed so it's perfect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259355360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a few more things you need to take care of in order to not become infected:<br>Keep \_all\_ your software up to date<br>Don't trust SD cards, USB dongles, etc. from other people. Windows has this horrendous bug (can be turned off though) that will auto-execute fles called autorun.inf in the root directory of the drive</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a few more things you need to take care of in order to not become infected : Keep \ _all \ _ your software up to dateDo n't trust SD cards , USB dongles , etc .
from other people .
Windows has this horrendous bug ( can be turned off though ) that will auto-execute fles called autorun.inf in the root directory of the drive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a few more things you need to take care of in order to not become infected:Keep \_all\_ your software up to dateDon't trust SD cards, USB dongles, etc.
from other people.
Windows has this horrendous bug (can be turned off though) that will auto-execute fles called autorun.inf in the root directory of the drive</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245560</id>
	<title>Re:F-Secure smells money</title>
	<author>marcansoft</author>
	<datestamp>1259338260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how everyone pretends that recent trojan targeted "jailbroken" iPhones.</p><p>It didn't. It targeted <i>stupid</i> users who happened to have a jailbroken iPhone. Specifically, it targeted users who install OpenSSH without changing the default password (ignoring warnings to the effect). There's no vulnerability here, and a stock jailbroken iPhone is <b>not</b> vulnerable. The same exact kind of malware can affect every poorly configured UNIX system out there - for example, that router-based botnet that infected routers with default SSH passwords running Linux. There are tons of Linux rootkits out there too, and servers with poor passwords are rooted all the time. Does that mean we urgently need craptacular AV software on all Linux boxes?</p><p>On the other hand, it is true that a non-jailbroken iPhone has an extra layer of protection in the form of compulsive executable signing. Apple ostensibly has superior security (in non-jailbroken devices), but that's just because they lock down the device tight. It's "good" old Trusted Computing, the kind that does not trust the user. By jailbreaking the device, you're freeing yourself from nanny Apple's oversight. If it turns out you were better off with it, well, that's your own fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how everyone pretends that recent trojan targeted " jailbroken " iPhones.It did n't .
It targeted stupid users who happened to have a jailbroken iPhone .
Specifically , it targeted users who install OpenSSH without changing the default password ( ignoring warnings to the effect ) .
There 's no vulnerability here , and a stock jailbroken iPhone is not vulnerable .
The same exact kind of malware can affect every poorly configured UNIX system out there - for example , that router-based botnet that infected routers with default SSH passwords running Linux .
There are tons of Linux rootkits out there too , and servers with poor passwords are rooted all the time .
Does that mean we urgently need craptacular AV software on all Linux boxes ? On the other hand , it is true that a non-jailbroken iPhone has an extra layer of protection in the form of compulsive executable signing .
Apple ostensibly has superior security ( in non-jailbroken devices ) , but that 's just because they lock down the device tight .
It 's " good " old Trusted Computing , the kind that does not trust the user .
By jailbreaking the device , you 're freeing yourself from nanny Apple 's oversight .
If it turns out you were better off with it , well , that 's your own fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how everyone pretends that recent trojan targeted "jailbroken" iPhones.It didn't.
It targeted stupid users who happened to have a jailbroken iPhone.
Specifically, it targeted users who install OpenSSH without changing the default password (ignoring warnings to the effect).
There's no vulnerability here, and a stock jailbroken iPhone is not vulnerable.
The same exact kind of malware can affect every poorly configured UNIX system out there - for example, that router-based botnet that infected routers with default SSH passwords running Linux.
There are tons of Linux rootkits out there too, and servers with poor passwords are rooted all the time.
Does that mean we urgently need craptacular AV software on all Linux boxes?On the other hand, it is true that a non-jailbroken iPhone has an extra layer of protection in the form of compulsive executable signing.
Apple ostensibly has superior security (in non-jailbroken devices), but that's just because they lock down the device tight.
It's "good" old Trusted Computing, the kind that does not trust the user.
By jailbreaking the device, you're freeing yourself from nanny Apple's oversight.
If it turns out you were better off with it, well, that's your own fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247676</id>
	<title>Re:I see an opening for Android...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259351880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Step 6: somebody writes an ACTUAL virus for the Android, since you can install unsigned software. Users everywhere get pwned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 6 : somebody writes an ACTUAL virus for the Android , since you can install unsigned software .
Users everywhere get pwned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 6: somebody writes an ACTUAL virus for the Android, since you can install unsigned software.
Users everywhere get pwned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245048</id>
	<title>Re:It's closed so it's perfect</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1259333820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anti-virus/anti-malware always seems to be a shitty bandaid to a badly designed system.  Even running Windows 7, with UAC on, non-administrative account 99.999\% time, always a non-IE browser, and very strict on what I run as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe and where I download them, ad-aware just found some wind32 trojan.</p><p>Also, people forget this is supposed to be a portable device, even a phone sometimes.  Remember what most A/V does to your desktop?  I don't run A/V on my notebook, and I actually do want a decent battery life on my phone, as hard as that is to believe.</p><p>However, I know there will be problems with the iPhone.  I do wish its safari had the option of "noscript" and stronger adblock plus than its own system among other things.  And that when you do use it for the first time, it would have a video on safe usage.  You can't upgrade or improve the user, the weakest link, but at least you can try to lead that horse to water that is education.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anti-virus/anti-malware always seems to be a shitty bandaid to a badly designed system .
Even running Windows 7 , with UAC on , non-administrative account 99.999 \ % time , always a non-IE browser , and very strict on what I run as .exe and where I download them , ad-aware just found some wind32 trojan.Also , people forget this is supposed to be a portable device , even a phone sometimes .
Remember what most A/V does to your desktop ?
I do n't run A/V on my notebook , and I actually do want a decent battery life on my phone , as hard as that is to believe.However , I know there will be problems with the iPhone .
I do wish its safari had the option of " noscript " and stronger adblock plus than its own system among other things .
And that when you do use it for the first time , it would have a video on safe usage .
You ca n't upgrade or improve the user , the weakest link , but at least you can try to lead that horse to water that is education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anti-virus/anti-malware always seems to be a shitty bandaid to a badly designed system.
Even running Windows 7, with UAC on, non-administrative account 99.999\% time, always a non-IE browser, and very strict on what I run as .exe and where I download them, ad-aware just found some wind32 trojan.Also, people forget this is supposed to be a portable device, even a phone sometimes.
Remember what most A/V does to your desktop?
I don't run A/V on my notebook, and I actually do want a decent battery life on my phone, as hard as that is to believe.However, I know there will be problems with the iPhone.
I do wish its safari had the option of "noscript" and stronger adblock plus than its own system among other things.
And that when you do use it for the first time, it would have a video on safe usage.
You can't upgrade or improve the user, the weakest link, but at least you can try to lead that horse to water that is education.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247992</id>
	<title>Re:Phones must not need anti-virus</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1259353680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jailbreaking is NOT acting irresponsibly - writing viruses / malware is.  I say mandatory 20 year sentences for anyone who writes a virus / malware and while they are in prison they aren't allowed anywhere near a computer or near books on computers.  That way by the time they get out, virtually everything they knew about computers will be so outdated that they'll have a damn hard time trying to catch up.  Also, they should openly tie them up in the prison yard for Bubba and Co to rape the shit out of.  Maybe then those assholes will stop writing viruses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jailbreaking is NOT acting irresponsibly - writing viruses / malware is .
I say mandatory 20 year sentences for anyone who writes a virus / malware and while they are in prison they are n't allowed anywhere near a computer or near books on computers .
That way by the time they get out , virtually everything they knew about computers will be so outdated that they 'll have a damn hard time trying to catch up .
Also , they should openly tie them up in the prison yard for Bubba and Co to rape the shit out of .
Maybe then those assholes will stop writing viruses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jailbreaking is NOT acting irresponsibly - writing viruses / malware is.
I say mandatory 20 year sentences for anyone who writes a virus / malware and while they are in prison they aren't allowed anywhere near a computer or near books on computers.
That way by the time they get out, virtually everything they knew about computers will be so outdated that they'll have a damn hard time trying to catch up.
Also, they should openly tie them up in the prison yard for Bubba and Co to rape the shit out of.
Maybe then those assholes will stop writing viruses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245160</id>
	<title>Re:It's closed so it's perfect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259335020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wake me when a security problem surfaces on a non-jail broken iPhone.
<br> <br>
The mac OS is not as closed as the iPhone, which is why it is more vulnerable.
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Still waiting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wake me when a security problem surfaces on a non-jail broken iPhone .
The mac OS is not as closed as the iPhone , which is why it is more vulnerable .
...Still waiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wake me when a security problem surfaces on a non-jail broken iPhone.
The mac OS is not as closed as the iPhone, which is why it is more vulnerable.
...Still waiting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245074</id>
	<title>Re:F-Secure smells money</title>
	<author>purpledinoz</author>
	<datestamp>1259334120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can imagine what Norton Antivirus will look like on the iPhone. First, everything would run slower, battery life would be cut in half, and a huge yellow annoying banner would attach itself to the browser reminding you that you are "PROTECTED BY NORTON ANTIVIRUS".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can imagine what Norton Antivirus will look like on the iPhone .
First , everything would run slower , battery life would be cut in half , and a huge yellow annoying banner would attach itself to the browser reminding you that you are " PROTECTED BY NORTON ANTIVIRUS " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can imagine what Norton Antivirus will look like on the iPhone.
First, everything would run slower, battery life would be cut in half, and a huge yellow annoying banner would attach itself to the browser reminding you that you are "PROTECTED BY NORTON ANTIVIRUS".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247262</id>
	<title>Clearly, all iPhone</title>
	<author>Brummund</author>
	<datestamp>1259349360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>users long for McAfee32.exe eating up 10-15\% of CPU time, while intercepting network traffic and checking your mails. Clearly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>users long for McAfee32.exe eating up 10-15 \ % of CPU time , while intercepting network traffic and checking your mails .
Clearly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>users long for McAfee32.exe eating up 10-15\% of CPU time, while intercepting network traffic and checking your mails.
Clearly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245106</id>
	<title>Apps run in a sandbox</title>
	<author>Negatyfus</author>
	<datestamp>1259334600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple isn't too concerned because all Apps run in a sandbox. There would have to be a very glaring hole in iPhoneOS would an attacker be able to take over an iPhone in this way. I remember a vulnerability that allowed exploitation through doctored SMS packets somehow, but I'm not sure how serious it was. At any rate, that's fixed now as far as I remember.

Really, this is just about anti-virus companies trying to instill fear in the hearts of ignorant users. iPhone users that have jailbroken their iPhone have made it their own responsibility to look after security and I don't believe for a second that F-Secure is targeting *them* (SDK limitations wouldn't be a roadblock in that case).

I see very little opportunity for a hacker to invade an iPhone, and thus it's not a huge priority to install any security software on the iPhone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is n't too concerned because all Apps run in a sandbox .
There would have to be a very glaring hole in iPhoneOS would an attacker be able to take over an iPhone in this way .
I remember a vulnerability that allowed exploitation through doctored SMS packets somehow , but I 'm not sure how serious it was .
At any rate , that 's fixed now as far as I remember .
Really , this is just about anti-virus companies trying to instill fear in the hearts of ignorant users .
iPhone users that have jailbroken their iPhone have made it their own responsibility to look after security and I do n't believe for a second that F-Secure is targeting * them * ( SDK limitations would n't be a roadblock in that case ) .
I see very little opportunity for a hacker to invade an iPhone , and thus it 's not a huge priority to install any security software on the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple isn't too concerned because all Apps run in a sandbox.
There would have to be a very glaring hole in iPhoneOS would an attacker be able to take over an iPhone in this way.
I remember a vulnerability that allowed exploitation through doctored SMS packets somehow, but I'm not sure how serious it was.
At any rate, that's fixed now as far as I remember.
Really, this is just about anti-virus companies trying to instill fear in the hearts of ignorant users.
iPhone users that have jailbroken their iPhone have made it their own responsibility to look after security and I don't believe for a second that F-Secure is targeting *them* (SDK limitations wouldn't be a roadblock in that case).
I see very little opportunity for a hacker to invade an iPhone, and thus it's not a huge priority to install any security software on the iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245740</id>
	<title>get solution here</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1259339220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"F-Secure researchers are calling attention to the fact that it's impossible to run third-party anti-virus on iPhones, because the SDK doesn't allow for it. It's a problem, as they claim malware will start to target the phone"</p><p>Why not use the same method the mawlare writers use. Oh, wait, it isn't possible unless the user explididly jailbreaks the device and uses the default password in SSH<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" F-Secure researchers are calling attention to the fact that it 's impossible to run third-party anti-virus on iPhones , because the SDK does n't allow for it .
It 's a problem , as they claim malware will start to target the phone " Why not use the same method the mawlare writers use .
Oh , wait , it is n't possible unless the user explididly jailbreaks the device and uses the default password in SSH . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"F-Secure researchers are calling attention to the fact that it's impossible to run third-party anti-virus on iPhones, because the SDK doesn't allow for it.
It's a problem, as they claim malware will start to target the phone"Why not use the same method the mawlare writers use.
Oh, wait, it isn't possible unless the user explididly jailbreaks the device and uses the default password in SSH ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245018</id>
	<title>Re:better for apple</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1259333640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you get it: Running the antivirus software keeps all other programs including the malware from running.<br>
Sure sounds familiar...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you get it : Running the antivirus software keeps all other programs including the malware from running .
Sure sounds familiar.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you get it: Running the antivirus software keeps all other programs including the malware from running.
Sure sounds familiar...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245358</id>
	<title>The iPhone is running windows?</title>
	<author>denebeim</author>
	<datestamp>1259336700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought it was running some form of Unix/Linux sort of OS.</p><p>I realize these modern day snake oil salesmen have convinced corporate America that their product is effective against all viruses on all platforms.  However if you look at the definition file that they install on all the systems you'll see that the signatures list which platform they're for.  I was curious so I greped the file.  Turns out that while there's hundreds of thousands of windows definitions in the file there's only tens for linux and fewer for sun.</p><p>When pressed on this they'll tell you that they look for all those viruses so they arn't passed by the ftp/http/mail server on the unix box.  While there's some merit to this position I don't see how it's at all relevant to the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was running some form of Unix/Linux sort of OS.I realize these modern day snake oil salesmen have convinced corporate America that their product is effective against all viruses on all platforms .
However if you look at the definition file that they install on all the systems you 'll see that the signatures list which platform they 're for .
I was curious so I greped the file .
Turns out that while there 's hundreds of thousands of windows definitions in the file there 's only tens for linux and fewer for sun.When pressed on this they 'll tell you that they look for all those viruses so they ar n't passed by the ftp/http/mail server on the unix box .
While there 's some merit to this position I do n't see how it 's at all relevant to the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it was running some form of Unix/Linux sort of OS.I realize these modern day snake oil salesmen have convinced corporate America that their product is effective against all viruses on all platforms.
However if you look at the definition file that they install on all the systems you'll see that the signatures list which platform they're for.
I was curious so I greped the file.
Turns out that while there's hundreds of thousands of windows definitions in the file there's only tens for linux and fewer for sun.When pressed on this they'll tell you that they look for all those viruses so they arn't passed by the ftp/http/mail server on the unix box.
While there's some merit to this position I don't see how it's at all relevant to the iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247946</id>
	<title>Re:No mechanism for transmission</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1259353440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Antivirus for Palm?  Wow, I thought it was secure without it since people stopped using it about 10 years ago..... (mostly joking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Antivirus for Palm ?
Wow , I thought it was secure without it since people stopped using it about 10 years ago..... ( mostly joking : D )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Antivirus for Palm?
Wow, I thought it was secure without it since people stopped using it about 10 years ago..... (mostly joking :D)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245348</id>
	<title>Phones must not need anti-virus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259336640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am being quite serious here. Mobile devices need good battery life, and there is a limit to what can be done with batteries and screens. If you need an anti-virus program, you are using more power and the battery life is shorter: end of story. Forget whether Apple is Gandalf or Sauron, their attitude is 100\% correct.<p>Going further, I have absolutely no patience with people who hack iPhones. A phone is an appliance connected to a public asset - EM bandwidth. People using public assets have a duty of care, and it's the failure of duty of care (tragedy of the Commons) that has done a lot of damage to society.</p><p>What I do on my own local network is my affair, but I think increasingly we should have a reasonable expectation that anything connected to a public network is properly secured and maintained, just like (in the UK at least) we test cars annually to check they are safe on the road. I'm afraid that the Wild West days of the Internet are increasingly over - and the excesses of some people is bringing down an overreaction.</p><p>Over the next 20 years we have to find a way to put the genie back in the bottle without killing the genie or spoiling the bottle. The politicians will try to screw this up. But the rest of us need to realise that we need to grow up too - we need to understand that if we want a reliable public internet and mobile phone system, we need to stop treating people who act irresponsibly as if their behaviour was acceptable or clever. Otherwise anti-virus and anti-malware software will continue to eat up too many of our CPU cycles, shorten the lives of our hard drives, and cause increasing frustration to those of us who actually need to earn a living, and have to use the Internet and the phone system to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am being quite serious here .
Mobile devices need good battery life , and there is a limit to what can be done with batteries and screens .
If you need an anti-virus program , you are using more power and the battery life is shorter : end of story .
Forget whether Apple is Gandalf or Sauron , their attitude is 100 \ % correct.Going further , I have absolutely no patience with people who hack iPhones .
A phone is an appliance connected to a public asset - EM bandwidth .
People using public assets have a duty of care , and it 's the failure of duty of care ( tragedy of the Commons ) that has done a lot of damage to society.What I do on my own local network is my affair , but I think increasingly we should have a reasonable expectation that anything connected to a public network is properly secured and maintained , just like ( in the UK at least ) we test cars annually to check they are safe on the road .
I 'm afraid that the Wild West days of the Internet are increasingly over - and the excesses of some people is bringing down an overreaction.Over the next 20 years we have to find a way to put the genie back in the bottle without killing the genie or spoiling the bottle .
The politicians will try to screw this up .
But the rest of us need to realise that we need to grow up too - we need to understand that if we want a reliable public internet and mobile phone system , we need to stop treating people who act irresponsibly as if their behaviour was acceptable or clever .
Otherwise anti-virus and anti-malware software will continue to eat up too many of our CPU cycles , shorten the lives of our hard drives , and cause increasing frustration to those of us who actually need to earn a living , and have to use the Internet and the phone system to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am being quite serious here.
Mobile devices need good battery life, and there is a limit to what can be done with batteries and screens.
If you need an anti-virus program, you are using more power and the battery life is shorter: end of story.
Forget whether Apple is Gandalf or Sauron, their attitude is 100\% correct.Going further, I have absolutely no patience with people who hack iPhones.
A phone is an appliance connected to a public asset - EM bandwidth.
People using public assets have a duty of care, and it's the failure of duty of care (tragedy of the Commons) that has done a lot of damage to society.What I do on my own local network is my affair, but I think increasingly we should have a reasonable expectation that anything connected to a public network is properly secured and maintained, just like (in the UK at least) we test cars annually to check they are safe on the road.
I'm afraid that the Wild West days of the Internet are increasingly over - and the excesses of some people is bringing down an overreaction.Over the next 20 years we have to find a way to put the genie back in the bottle without killing the genie or spoiling the bottle.
The politicians will try to screw this up.
But the rest of us need to realise that we need to grow up too - we need to understand that if we want a reliable public internet and mobile phone system, we need to stop treating people who act irresponsibly as if their behaviour was acceptable or clever.
Otherwise anti-virus and anti-malware software will continue to eat up too many of our CPU cycles, shorten the lives of our hard drives, and cause increasing frustration to those of us who actually need to earn a living, and have to use the Internet and the phone system to do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245446</id>
	<title>Re:It's closed so it's perfect</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1259337360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PS - as for your other comment, I remember on other stories how people were insisting that Iphones ran OS X... Obviously it does when it's something to brag about, and it doesn't when it's a problem, I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PS - as for your other comment , I remember on other stories how people were insisting that Iphones ran OS X... Obviously it does when it 's something to brag about , and it does n't when it 's a problem , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PS - as for your other comment, I remember on other stories how people were insisting that Iphones ran OS X... Obviously it does when it's something to brag about, and it doesn't when it's a problem, I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245092</id>
	<title>Re:better for apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259334300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically, the iPhone is running OS X, so it can run as many processes as the hardware will allow.  It is the fact that apps are run under heavy restrictions which prevent multiple apps from running on a pristine iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically , the iPhone is running OS X , so it can run as many processes as the hardware will allow .
It is the fact that apps are run under heavy restrictions which prevent multiple apps from running on a pristine iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically, the iPhone is running OS X, so it can run as many processes as the hardware will allow.
It is the fact that apps are run under heavy restrictions which prevent multiple apps from running on a pristine iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247710</id>
	<title>Re:F-Secure smells money</title>
	<author>NoOneInParticular</author>
	<datestamp>1259352060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SSH should not install insecurely. Even in the time to log in and change the password, your device could be compromised. Instead of blaming the user (under which is the guy that installed ssh and never looked at it again), blame the distributor. He shipped a product that's insecure on install, and needs to be hardened by hand. That's stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>SSH should not install insecurely .
Even in the time to log in and change the password , your device could be compromised .
Instead of blaming the user ( under which is the guy that installed ssh and never looked at it again ) , blame the distributor .
He shipped a product that 's insecure on install , and needs to be hardened by hand .
That 's stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSH should not install insecurely.
Even in the time to log in and change the password, your device could be compromised.
Instead of blaming the user (under which is the guy that installed ssh and never looked at it again), blame the distributor.
He shipped a product that's insecure on install, and needs to be hardened by hand.
That's stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245036</id>
	<title>I can protect your pretty iPhones...</title>
	<author>wzzzzrd</author>
	<datestamp>1259333760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...all you have to do is to give me some money every week...If I were you, I'd think about what can happen to that pretty phone if it wouldn't be protected...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...all you have to do is to give me some money every week...If I were you , I 'd think about what can happen to that pretty phone if it would n't be protected.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...all you have to do is to give me some money every week...If I were you, I'd think about what can happen to that pretty phone if it wouldn't be protected...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245128</id>
	<title>No mechanism for transmission</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1259334840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is even more stupid than their attempt to sell antivirus for Palm OS.</p><p>There is no mechanism for transmission between one iPhone and another UNLESS the iPhone is jailbroken.</p><p>So Symantec only needs to write antivirus for jailbroken iPhones. And Apple would have no way to prevent them. So what's their problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is even more stupid than their attempt to sell antivirus for Palm OS.There is no mechanism for transmission between one iPhone and another UNLESS the iPhone is jailbroken.So Symantec only needs to write antivirus for jailbroken iPhones .
And Apple would have no way to prevent them .
So what 's their problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is even more stupid than their attempt to sell antivirus for Palm OS.There is no mechanism for transmission between one iPhone and another UNLESS the iPhone is jailbroken.So Symantec only needs to write antivirus for jailbroken iPhones.
And Apple would have no way to prevent them.
So what's their problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247206</id>
	<title>"Jailbreaking your iPhone is bad!", quoth newssite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259349060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I love how everyone pretends that recent trojan targeted "jailbroken" iPhones.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you don't think that this is an orchestrated effort, wake up.</p><p>Check out the timeline of the vulnerability releases.  From the first one that just alerted the user, the next that rick rolled, the next that actually did naughty things.</p><p>The very first news snippets fully explained what happened, how it could happen, that the user was at fault, and how users could fix it, along with potential suggestions to providers on how -they- could prevent these attacks across their network.</p><p>Then the next few always pointed out that non-jailbroken iPhones would not be at risk because, hey, those users -can't- install OpenSSH anyway.</p><p>Lately, news items just mention that jailbroken iphone users are at severe risk.</p><p>I'm not claiming Apple is being the grand orchestra conductor - it may very well be self-regulation along news sites who want to continue to paint iPhone in the joyful light so that every small news item on it is bound to get a crapton of page (and thus ad) views, and keep Apple on their good side for potential review items.</p><p>Either way, public opinion is being formed by this type of reporting, and it's working.  Even on slashdot more and more voices say that jailbreaking your iPhone is something that should not be done - for a variety of reasons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how everyone pretends that recent trojan targeted " jailbroken " iPhones.If you do n't think that this is an orchestrated effort , wake up.Check out the timeline of the vulnerability releases .
From the first one that just alerted the user , the next that rick rolled , the next that actually did naughty things.The very first news snippets fully explained what happened , how it could happen , that the user was at fault , and how users could fix it , along with potential suggestions to providers on how -they- could prevent these attacks across their network.Then the next few always pointed out that non-jailbroken iPhones would not be at risk because , hey , those users -ca n't- install OpenSSH anyway.Lately , news items just mention that jailbroken iphone users are at severe risk.I 'm not claiming Apple is being the grand orchestra conductor - it may very well be self-regulation along news sites who want to continue to paint iPhone in the joyful light so that every small news item on it is bound to get a crapton of page ( and thus ad ) views , and keep Apple on their good side for potential review items.Either way , public opinion is being formed by this type of reporting , and it 's working .
Even on slashdot more and more voices say that jailbreaking your iPhone is something that should not be done - for a variety of reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how everyone pretends that recent trojan targeted "jailbroken" iPhones.If you don't think that this is an orchestrated effort, wake up.Check out the timeline of the vulnerability releases.
From the first one that just alerted the user, the next that rick rolled, the next that actually did naughty things.The very first news snippets fully explained what happened, how it could happen, that the user was at fault, and how users could fix it, along with potential suggestions to providers on how -they- could prevent these attacks across their network.Then the next few always pointed out that non-jailbroken iPhones would not be at risk because, hey, those users -can't- install OpenSSH anyway.Lately, news items just mention that jailbroken iphone users are at severe risk.I'm not claiming Apple is being the grand orchestra conductor - it may very well be self-regulation along news sites who want to continue to paint iPhone in the joyful light so that every small news item on it is bound to get a crapton of page (and thus ad) views, and keep Apple on their good side for potential review items.Either way, public opinion is being formed by this type of reporting, and it's working.
Even on slashdot more and more voices say that jailbreaking your iPhone is something that should not be done - for a variety of reasons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247724</id>
	<title>Jail Breaking Makes sense</title>
	<author>ironicsky</author>
	<datestamp>1259352120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've had two iPhones, both of which were jailbroken within about 30 seconds of activation through iTunes. Why? Because... If I buy a computer from Dell, HP, Apple, etc I'm free to do as a please, install software as needed, patch stuff that needs patching, etc... When I buy a $700 iPhone(Not on contract, full price) I am essentially buying a tiny ass computer with all the capabilities of my desktop and laptops, just palm sized. So Why shouldn't I be able to develop for it and modify it as I see necessary? I'm not screwing with the Baseband, so I'm not going to take down a cell tower, I simply want to be able to run the apps I want to run.
<br> <br>
I run
<ul>
 <li>iLocalis - For real time tracking of my iPhones location and state of operation</li><li>Winterboard - To provide me with a much superior and insanely customizable UI</li><li>iSSH and openSSH - To allow me to get diagnostic files out of apps, setup firewall rules, etc.. I've actually sent app diagnostic files to developers of iTunes App Store Applications to help them figure out why their app has wierd quirks</li><li>IntelliScreen - To have a summary of my phone's e-mails, sms, calendar and news without having to unlock my phone</li><li>MyProfiles - To provide me with greater flexability and automatic profile changing based on time of day and location(Automatically goes in to Vibrate Mode when I enter my office building during work hours, goes to silent mode when I go to bed)</li><li>Misc tweaks to trick apps in to thinking they are always on WIFI so I'm not limited to the App Stores 10Mb GPRS Download Limits</li></ul><p>

Jail breaking is obviously not for everyone... IE, those who don't change the root password to their phone as per Rocks, Icy, and Cydia's warning when installing openSSH.
<br> <br>
If Apple let people customize their phones like I detailed above, I'd really have no need for Jail Breaking. But I want specific features out of my phone, I'm ready to assume the risks, and lower battery life(which is why I have three chargers, 2 at home, 1 at the office because I only get a day and a half of battery life)
<br> <br>
Yes, this is mildly off topic... But no, I do not think an Anti-virus for the iPhone will make things any better... Jailed phones don't need it, most jailbroken users are smart enough to not need it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had two iPhones , both of which were jailbroken within about 30 seconds of activation through iTunes .
Why ? Because... If I buy a computer from Dell , HP , Apple , etc I 'm free to do as a please , install software as needed , patch stuff that needs patching , etc... When I buy a $ 700 iPhone ( Not on contract , full price ) I am essentially buying a tiny ass computer with all the capabilities of my desktop and laptops , just palm sized .
So Why should n't I be able to develop for it and modify it as I see necessary ?
I 'm not screwing with the Baseband , so I 'm not going to take down a cell tower , I simply want to be able to run the apps I want to run .
I run iLocalis - For real time tracking of my iPhones location and state of operationWinterboard - To provide me with a much superior and insanely customizable UIiSSH and openSSH - To allow me to get diagnostic files out of apps , setup firewall rules , etc.. I 've actually sent app diagnostic files to developers of iTunes App Store Applications to help them figure out why their app has wierd quirksIntelliScreen - To have a summary of my phone 's e-mails , sms , calendar and news without having to unlock my phoneMyProfiles - To provide me with greater flexability and automatic profile changing based on time of day and location ( Automatically goes in to Vibrate Mode when I enter my office building during work hours , goes to silent mode when I go to bed ) Misc tweaks to trick apps in to thinking they are always on WIFI so I 'm not limited to the App Stores 10Mb GPRS Download Limits Jail breaking is obviously not for everyone... IE , those who do n't change the root password to their phone as per Rocks , Icy , and Cydia 's warning when installing openSSH .
If Apple let people customize their phones like I detailed above , I 'd really have no need for Jail Breaking .
But I want specific features out of my phone , I 'm ready to assume the risks , and lower battery life ( which is why I have three chargers , 2 at home , 1 at the office because I only get a day and a half of battery life ) Yes , this is mildly off topic... But no , I do not think an Anti-virus for the iPhone will make things any better... Jailed phones do n't need it , most jailbroken users are smart enough to not need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had two iPhones, both of which were jailbroken within about 30 seconds of activation through iTunes.
Why? Because... If I buy a computer from Dell, HP, Apple, etc I'm free to do as a please, install software as needed, patch stuff that needs patching, etc... When I buy a $700 iPhone(Not on contract, full price) I am essentially buying a tiny ass computer with all the capabilities of my desktop and laptops, just palm sized.
So Why shouldn't I be able to develop for it and modify it as I see necessary?
I'm not screwing with the Baseband, so I'm not going to take down a cell tower, I simply want to be able to run the apps I want to run.
I run

 iLocalis - For real time tracking of my iPhones location and state of operationWinterboard - To provide me with a much superior and insanely customizable UIiSSH and openSSH - To allow me to get diagnostic files out of apps, setup firewall rules, etc.. I've actually sent app diagnostic files to developers of iTunes App Store Applications to help them figure out why their app has wierd quirksIntelliScreen - To have a summary of my phone's e-mails, sms, calendar and news without having to unlock my phoneMyProfiles - To provide me with greater flexability and automatic profile changing based on time of day and location(Automatically goes in to Vibrate Mode when I enter my office building during work hours, goes to silent mode when I go to bed)Misc tweaks to trick apps in to thinking they are always on WIFI so I'm not limited to the App Stores 10Mb GPRS Download Limits

Jail breaking is obviously not for everyone... IE, those who don't change the root password to their phone as per Rocks, Icy, and Cydia's warning when installing openSSH.
If Apple let people customize their phones like I detailed above, I'd really have no need for Jail Breaking.
But I want specific features out of my phone, I'm ready to assume the risks, and lower battery life(which is why I have three chargers, 2 at home, 1 at the office because I only get a day and a half of battery life)
 
Yes, this is mildly off topic... But no, I do not think an Anti-virus for the iPhone will make things any better... Jailed phones don't need it, most jailbroken users are smart enough to not need it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012</id>
	<title>F-Secure smells money</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1259333580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the summary, F-Secure: "'Apple hasn't been too interested in developing antivirus solutions for the iPhone, because there are no viruses, which of course, isn't exactly true.' .</p><p>No, indeed, only jailbroken phones were infected. Thus the obvious solution for F-Secure would be to bring out an app in Cydia or other app stores for jailbroken devices.</p><p>Of course, rather than do something, their execs prefer to spend their time whining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary , F-Secure : " 'Apple has n't been too interested in developing antivirus solutions for the iPhone , because there are no viruses , which of course , is n't exactly true .
' .No , indeed , only jailbroken phones were infected .
Thus the obvious solution for F-Secure would be to bring out an app in Cydia or other app stores for jailbroken devices.Of course , rather than do something , their execs prefer to spend their time whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary, F-Secure: "'Apple hasn't been too interested in developing antivirus solutions for the iPhone, because there are no viruses, which of course, isn't exactly true.
' .No, indeed, only jailbroken phones were infected.
Thus the obvious solution for F-Secure would be to bring out an app in Cydia or other app stores for jailbroken devices.Of course, rather than do something, their execs prefer to spend their time whining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245702</id>
	<title>Re:It's closed so it's perfect</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1259339040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're running V1.0 software. Of course it is going to have holes!<br> <br>By god, man, where have you been?! XP was rooted <i>before it was released</i>.<br> <br>Come back when SP1 is out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're running V1.0 software .
Of course it is going to have holes !
By god , man , where have you been ? !
XP was rooted before it was released .
Come back when SP1 is out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're running V1.0 software.
Of course it is going to have holes!
By god, man, where have you been?!
XP was rooted before it was released.
Come back when SP1 is out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244994</id>
	<title>better for apple</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1259333400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At the moment, the only worms faced by the iPhone have targeted unlocked, jailbroken devices &mdash; so Apple's not too bothered protecting users of such phones.</p></div><p>Of course, it's just better for Apple if the viruses <i>do</i> go around in jailbroken devices.</p><p>And how would iphone support antivirus anyway? It can only run one program at a time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the moment , the only worms faced by the iPhone have targeted unlocked , jailbroken devices    so Apple 's not too bothered protecting users of such phones.Of course , it 's just better for Apple if the viruses do go around in jailbroken devices.And how would iphone support antivirus anyway ?
It can only run one program at a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the moment, the only worms faced by the iPhone have targeted unlocked, jailbroken devices — so Apple's not too bothered protecting users of such phones.Of course, it's just better for Apple if the viruses do go around in jailbroken devices.And how would iphone support antivirus anyway?
It can only run one program at a time.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30383450</id>
	<title>Re:better for apple</title>
	<author>PipsqueakOnAP133</author>
	<datestamp>1259588700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When jailbroken, apps can run in the background. The "one-app-at-a-time" thing only applies to normal third party apps from the app store.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When jailbroken , apps can run in the background .
The " one-app-at-a-time " thing only applies to normal third party apps from the app store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When jailbroken, apps can run in the background.
The "one-app-at-a-time" thing only applies to normal third party apps from the app store.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245850</id>
	<title>Re:Security Through Obscurity Never Works</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1259339820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They weren't talking about their source code being closed, they were walking about the way apps are loaded onto the iphone. There's no way a regular user can install a virus on their phone since all the installable apps are screened by Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They were n't talking about their source code being closed , they were walking about the way apps are loaded onto the iphone .
There 's no way a regular user can install a virus on their phone since all the installable apps are screened by Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They weren't talking about their source code being closed, they were walking about the way apps are loaded onto the iphone.
There's no way a regular user can install a virus on their phone since all the installable apps are screened by Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30246344</id>
	<title>Non-jailbroken phones are 99.999 percent safe.</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1259343120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason why hacking the phone is called a jailbreak is because it essentially breaks the security sandbox mechanism called a BSD jail. All apps on the iPhone run inside of these sandboxes which prevent access to other sandboxes where other apps are running. On a non-jailbroken phone, all apps also have to be signed and installed via iTunes so it is basically impossible barring someone at Apple not screening the app first for malware to get onto the device.
<p>
In the early days, there were some remote exploits that you could use to jailbreak a device but those remote exploits have now been fixed soon after the jailbreaking community discovered the holes and published their software.
</p><p>
The official firmware from Apple is essentially hardened now against any remote attacks or malware attempting to run so there is no market for anti-virus on the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why hacking the phone is called a jailbreak is because it essentially breaks the security sandbox mechanism called a BSD jail .
All apps on the iPhone run inside of these sandboxes which prevent access to other sandboxes where other apps are running .
On a non-jailbroken phone , all apps also have to be signed and installed via iTunes so it is basically impossible barring someone at Apple not screening the app first for malware to get onto the device .
In the early days , there were some remote exploits that you could use to jailbreak a device but those remote exploits have now been fixed soon after the jailbreaking community discovered the holes and published their software .
The official firmware from Apple is essentially hardened now against any remote attacks or malware attempting to run so there is no market for anti-virus on the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why hacking the phone is called a jailbreak is because it essentially breaks the security sandbox mechanism called a BSD jail.
All apps on the iPhone run inside of these sandboxes which prevent access to other sandboxes where other apps are running.
On a non-jailbroken phone, all apps also have to be signed and installed via iTunes so it is basically impossible barring someone at Apple not screening the app first for malware to get onto the device.
In the early days, there were some remote exploits that you could use to jailbreak a device but those remote exploits have now been fixed soon after the jailbreaking community discovered the holes and published their software.
The official firmware from Apple is essentially hardened now against any remote attacks or malware attempting to run so there is no market for anti-virus on the iPhone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245068</id>
	<title>I see an opening for Android...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259334060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and here it is:</p><p>Some fella develops and distributes some serious virus that "shuts down" a big number of iPhones...</p><p>This generates [bad] publicity for the device...</p><p>The media pick the story up...(in the meantime, it's "damage control" for Apple)...</p><p>Android is touted as the best alternative...</p><p>Motorola and Co. jump on the bandwagon...</p><p>What next? profits, numbers and market share for the Droid.</p><p>Question is: Am I wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and here it is : Some fella develops and distributes some serious virus that " shuts down " a big number of iPhones...This generates [ bad ] publicity for the device...The media pick the story up... ( in the meantime , it 's " damage control " for Apple ) ...Android is touted as the best alternative...Motorola and Co. jump on the bandwagon...What next ?
profits , numbers and market share for the Droid.Question is : Am I wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and here it is:Some fella develops and distributes some serious virus that "shuts down" a big number of iPhones...This generates [bad] publicity for the device...The media pick the story up...(in the meantime, it's "damage control" for Apple)...Android is touted as the best alternative...Motorola and Co. jump on the bandwagon...What next?
profits, numbers and market share for the Droid.Question is: Am I wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245190</id>
	<title>Re:better for apple</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1259335440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only third party apps are barred from running in the background.</p><p>Apple apps can and do run in the background which is why any AV company would have to work with Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only third party apps are barred from running in the background.Apple apps can and do run in the background which is why any AV company would have to work with Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only third party apps are barred from running in the background.Apple apps can and do run in the background which is why any AV company would have to work with Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245300</id>
	<title>Security Through Obscurity Never Works</title>
	<author>SwashbucklingCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259336340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"While Apple claims that the iPhone's closed nature offers protection to its users"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" While Apple claims that the iPhone 's closed nature offers protection to its users "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"While Apple claims that the iPhone's closed nature offers protection to its users"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245762</id>
	<title>Re:It's closed so it's perfect,Christmas gift,</title>
	<author>coolforsale1214</author>
	<datestamp>1259339340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76</a> [coolforsale.com]   (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello , In order to meet Christmas , Site launched Christmas spree , welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises , look forward to your arrival .
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is " Best quality , Best reputation , Best services " .
Your satisfaction is our main pursue .
You can find the best products from us , meeting your different needs .
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
http : //www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp ? id = s76 [ coolforsale.com ] ( Tracksuit w ) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping Thanks ! ! !
Advance wish you a merry Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival.
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services".
Your satisfaction is our main pursue.
You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com]   (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!!
Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245058</id>
	<title>I'm glad they can't make anti-virus for iphone.</title>
	<author>stevens</author>
	<datestamp>1259334000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's like desktop anti-virus, it will have its own vulnerabilities, take up more resources than I'd like, cause buggy behaviour or incompatibilities with other apps, and feed me false positives too often.</p><p>I don't need that on my phone.  Since the only real malware we've seen for the iphone involves jailbreaking and then not properly managing your phone, I can do without.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's like desktop anti-virus , it will have its own vulnerabilities , take up more resources than I 'd like , cause buggy behaviour or incompatibilities with other apps , and feed me false positives too often.I do n't need that on my phone .
Since the only real malware we 've seen for the iphone involves jailbreaking and then not properly managing your phone , I can do without .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's like desktop anti-virus, it will have its own vulnerabilities, take up more resources than I'd like, cause buggy behaviour or incompatibilities with other apps, and feed me false positives too often.I don't need that on my phone.
Since the only real malware we've seen for the iphone involves jailbreaking and then not properly managing your phone, I can do without.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247868</id>
	<title>Re:It's closed so it's perfect</title>
	<author>neBelcnU</author>
	<datestamp>1259353080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot the Jedi hand-wave. <br>

If you'd remembered, we wouldn't have had the replies below.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the Jedi hand-wave .
If you 'd remembered , we would n't have had the replies below .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the Jedi hand-wave.
If you'd remembered, we wouldn't have had the replies below.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245248</id>
	<title>Re:It's closed so it's perfect</title>
	<author>john82</author>
	<datestamp>1259335800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA.</p><p>If you don't void the user agreement by jailbreaking your iPhone, you don't have this problem. Apple set up the environment. As it's designed, users are protected. If you choose to negate that design, you may have problems.</p><p>Where is Apple's liability if you don't use it as designed (or as dictated in the UA)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA.If you do n't void the user agreement by jailbreaking your iPhone , you do n't have this problem .
Apple set up the environment .
As it 's designed , users are protected .
If you choose to negate that design , you may have problems.Where is Apple 's liability if you do n't use it as designed ( or as dictated in the UA ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.If you don't void the user agreement by jailbreaking your iPhone, you don't have this problem.
Apple set up the environment.
As it's designed, users are protected.
If you choose to negate that design, you may have problems.Where is Apple's liability if you don't use it as designed (or as dictated in the UA)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245126</id>
	<title>So no low level kernel hooks...</title>
	<author>Viol8</author>
	<datestamp>1259334840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that be used by any tom , dick or harry and screw up or silently alter the functioning of the kernel?</p><p>Oh , shame. I guess they'd better stick to using Windows if that's the sort of enviroment these antivirus writers are happy working in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that be used by any tom , dick or harry and screw up or silently alter the functioning of the kernel ? Oh , shame .
I guess they 'd better stick to using Windows if that 's the sort of enviroment these antivirus writers are happy working in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that be used by any tom , dick or harry and screw up or silently alter the functioning of the kernel?Oh , shame.
I guess they'd better stick to using Windows if that's the sort of enviroment these antivirus writers are happy working in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245700</id>
	<title>Unlock != Jailbreak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259339040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BTW, if the original "anti-virus expert" really put unlock and jailbreak as the same thing, he needs to learn more about iPhones.</p><p>Jailbreak is breaking out of the chroot jail. It gives you root access so you can do wonderful things like install an SSH-daemon (which, unfortunately uses a standard password which the worms out there are exploiting now), as well as install apps that you want instead of only those that's passed Apple's draconian approval service.</p><p>Unlocking is SIM-unlocking, its purpose is so that an unauthorized SIM card (in the US that means non-AT&amp;T) works on the iPhone. If you're using an AT&amp;T card, you don't need to unlock, but you can still jailbreak. You need to run a software not authorized by Apple to do the unlock, so to unlock you *need* to jailbreak.</p><p>As for F-Secure, eh, fuck 'em. Their threat of Symbian viruses is also snake oil, it requires the most idiotic of idiots to see "Hmm someone wants to send me something over BlueTooth. OK I'll accept. Transfer finished. Let's open it. Oh it wants to install an app, should I install or should I deny?" and F-Secure sells you unproven protection if you say "install". Goddamnit, if you are so goddamned dumb, you deserve to get swindled by this company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , if the original " anti-virus expert " really put unlock and jailbreak as the same thing , he needs to learn more about iPhones.Jailbreak is breaking out of the chroot jail .
It gives you root access so you can do wonderful things like install an SSH-daemon ( which , unfortunately uses a standard password which the worms out there are exploiting now ) , as well as install apps that you want instead of only those that 's passed Apple 's draconian approval service.Unlocking is SIM-unlocking , its purpose is so that an unauthorized SIM card ( in the US that means non-AT&amp;T ) works on the iPhone .
If you 're using an AT&amp;T card , you do n't need to unlock , but you can still jailbreak .
You need to run a software not authorized by Apple to do the unlock , so to unlock you * need * to jailbreak.As for F-Secure , eh , fuck 'em .
Their threat of Symbian viruses is also snake oil , it requires the most idiotic of idiots to see " Hmm someone wants to send me something over BlueTooth .
OK I 'll accept .
Transfer finished .
Let 's open it .
Oh it wants to install an app , should I install or should I deny ?
" and F-Secure sells you unproven protection if you say " install " .
Goddamnit , if you are so goddamned dumb , you deserve to get swindled by this company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, if the original "anti-virus expert" really put unlock and jailbreak as the same thing, he needs to learn more about iPhones.Jailbreak is breaking out of the chroot jail.
It gives you root access so you can do wonderful things like install an SSH-daemon (which, unfortunately uses a standard password which the worms out there are exploiting now), as well as install apps that you want instead of only those that's passed Apple's draconian approval service.Unlocking is SIM-unlocking, its purpose is so that an unauthorized SIM card (in the US that means non-AT&amp;T) works on the iPhone.
If you're using an AT&amp;T card, you don't need to unlock, but you can still jailbreak.
You need to run a software not authorized by Apple to do the unlock, so to unlock you *need* to jailbreak.As for F-Secure, eh, fuck 'em.
Their threat of Symbian viruses is also snake oil, it requires the most idiotic of idiots to see "Hmm someone wants to send me something over BlueTooth.
OK I'll accept.
Transfer finished.
Let's open it.
Oh it wants to install an app, should I install or should I deny?
" and F-Secure sells you unproven protection if you say "install".
Goddamnit, if you are so goddamned dumb, you deserve to get swindled by this company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245388</id>
	<title>Re:F-Secure smells money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259336940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; rather than do something, their execs prefer to spend their time whining.</p><p>If you have an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:insert\_proprietary\_os/hardware\_here: you need to accept the fact that the vendor lock-in, closed-source nature of the product<br>is going to severely  limit your options when it comes to solving a problem or implementing a solution other than what has been dictated to<br>you.   This isn't whining, it's citing reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; rather than do something , their execs prefer to spend their time whining.If you have an : insert \ _proprietary \ _os/hardware \ _here : you need to accept the fact that the vendor lock-in , closed-source nature of the productis going to severely limit your options when it comes to solving a problem or implementing a solution other than what has been dictated toyou .
This is n't whining , it 's citing reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; rather than do something, their execs prefer to spend their time whining.If you have an :insert\_proprietary\_os/hardware\_here: you need to accept the fact that the vendor lock-in, closed-source nature of the productis going to severely  limit your options when it comes to solving a problem or implementing a solution other than what has been dictated toyou.
This isn't whining, it's citing reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245014</id>
	<title>Re:better for apple</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1259333580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And how would iphone support antivirus anyway? It can only run one program at a time.</p></div><p>Apparently it can only present one UI, but can presumably run several things. Hence the required help from Apple that the security firms asked for.<br>And if there are farting apps, there's no reason why there shouldn't be an icondom (or whatever).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how would iphone support antivirus anyway ?
It can only run one program at a time.Apparently it can only present one UI , but can presumably run several things .
Hence the required help from Apple that the security firms asked for.And if there are farting apps , there 's no reason why there should n't be an icondom ( or whatever ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how would iphone support antivirus anyway?
It can only run one program at a time.Apparently it can only present one UI, but can presumably run several things.
Hence the required help from Apple that the security firms asked for.And if there are farting apps, there's no reason why there shouldn't be an icondom (or whatever).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30248410</id>
	<title>Re:Phones must not need anti-virus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259313480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am being quite serious here. All computing devices need good energy efficiency. If you need an anti-virus program, you are using more power and energy: end of story. Forget whether Apple is Gandalf or Sauron, their attitude is 100\% correct.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....<br>But the rest of us need to realise that we need to grow up too - we need to understand that if we want a reliable public internet and mobile phone system, we need to stop treating people who act irresponsibly as if their behaviour was acceptable or clever. Otherwise anti-virus and anti-malware software will continue to eat up too many of our CPU cycles, shorten the lives of our hard drives, waste significant amounts of energy and corresponding Carbon Dioxide emissions, and cause increasing frustration to those of us who actually need to earn a living, and have to use the Internet and the phone system to do it.</p><p>There, fixed it for ya.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am being quite serious here .
All computing devices need good energy efficiency .
If you need an anti-virus program , you are using more power and energy : end of story .
Forget whether Apple is Gandalf or Sauron , their attitude is 100 \ % correct .
.....But the rest of us need to realise that we need to grow up too - we need to understand that if we want a reliable public internet and mobile phone system , we need to stop treating people who act irresponsibly as if their behaviour was acceptable or clever .
Otherwise anti-virus and anti-malware software will continue to eat up too many of our CPU cycles , shorten the lives of our hard drives , waste significant amounts of energy and corresponding Carbon Dioxide emissions , and cause increasing frustration to those of us who actually need to earn a living , and have to use the Internet and the phone system to do it.There , fixed it for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am being quite serious here.
All computing devices need good energy efficiency.
If you need an anti-virus program, you are using more power and energy: end of story.
Forget whether Apple is Gandalf or Sauron, their attitude is 100\% correct.
.....But the rest of us need to realise that we need to grow up too - we need to understand that if we want a reliable public internet and mobile phone system, we need to stop treating people who act irresponsibly as if their behaviour was acceptable or clever.
Otherwise anti-virus and anti-malware software will continue to eat up too many of our CPU cycles, shorten the lives of our hard drives, waste significant amounts of energy and corresponding Carbon Dioxide emissions, and cause increasing frustration to those of us who actually need to earn a living, and have to use the Internet and the phone system to do it.There, fixed it for ya.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245348</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30248222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30249854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30248410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30248008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30383450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30246326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_1249209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1249209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1249209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30248410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1249209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1249209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30383450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1249209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1249209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1249209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1249209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1249209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30244986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30248222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1249209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30248008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30247856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1249209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30246326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1249209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_1249209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30245086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_1249209.30249854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
