18 minutes ago
Wait are they really expecting free labor by offering an unlocked iphone (the basic tool needed to perform said labor anyways) to use, not own, as the compensation? And "maybe" some free credits? People are willing to work for cheap these days for sure.
6 hours ago
If you sign up to this program and use one of their devices for 'research', then you are bound by contract to report any security bugs to them and only them (unless the bug is in a 3rd party app). I see this as a pretty sneaky way of avoiding your security vulnerabilities going public and all the bad media exposure that goes along with it.
It is giving security researchers something they have always wanted in return for their silence. Another way to put it is bribery.
3 hours ago
Or they won’t give you a device if your intention is not to share back any exploits? Is the expectation that Apple gifts black hats research devices?
2 hours ago
> Apple gifts black hats research devices
this is the unintended consequence that whoever came up with this policy missed: it effectively leaves only bad actors in your pool
3 hours ago
The page only mentions that you're obligated to report it to them, not that you're not allowed to further publicize it (unless I missed something).
32 minutes ago
This is an important comment given the wild (though conceivable) speculations in other comments.
The subsequent sentence on the page also says that if you find a vulnerability in a third-party app you have to tell the third party.
3 hours ago
They also presumably don't want the exploits to fall into the wrong hands.. which might be a slightly less nefarious and equally plausible interpretation of the program.
Probably both things are true.
Either way, consumers ultimately win in that the products and services they use will be made more secure.
3 hours ago
What’s the difference between bribery and a simple agreement? Secrecy?
8 hours ago
Create a problem, and then heroically fight to make a solution.
This shouldn't exist in the first place. There would be no need for it if Apple didn't insist on "we own all the iPhones, our users just get to tap at them".
If you could just unlock the bootloader, re-enable SWD and do what you want with an iPhone that you actually own, there would be no need for this restrictive program at all.
7 hours ago
It wouldn’t be the most secure consumer phone then, would it?
6 hours ago
The fact so many technical people believe that security and freedom are mutually exclusive, and pay for that lie, is proof the Apple propaganda is working exactly as intended.
3 hours ago
> The fact so many technical people believe that security and freedom are mutually exclusive, and pay for that lie, is proof the Apple propaganda is working exactly as intended.
My Aunt Millie's iPhone is secure against herself because she can't install random garbage off the Internet and is in a walled garden.
As someone who works in IT: users are often their (and their organization's) own worst enemy. We've tried training and blacklisting (with anti-virus) for decades, and it appears that whitelisting and locking things down is what actually works.
I'd be happy with a 'compromise' where there's a factory reset where you can install your own code but it blows an e-fuse to indicate that device is no longer 'OEM certified secure' state.
2 hours ago
> I'd be happy with a 'compromise' where there's a factory reset where you can install your own code but it blows an e-fuse to indicate that device is no longer 'OEM certified secure' state.
You just described what Samsung does with their phones. You can unlock them, but even if you later switch back to the normal OS, some features are permanently disabled by that fuse.
23 minutes ago
"mutually exclusive" isn't a good way to think of it. "Tradeoffs" is much better.
iPhones are aimed at the many millions/billions of technically unsophisticated users who don't care about rooting their phone, but would be very unhappy to get phished out of their life savings.
4 hours ago
My Mac's very secure and I can install whatever I want. But it wouldn't be secure or private to do that on iPhone, because profit.
3 hours ago
Except “my Mac’s very secure and I can install whatever I want” is a complete fallacy. It isn’t secure - case in point Muse recently trawling through people’s messages. Or Mac cleaner like apps that trick users into installing them and giving liberal access.
I think if you don’t get the point of protecting a device against the user, you’ve not had to help un-tech savvy relatives get out of situations where dark or confusing UI practices have got themselves into a mess.
4 hours ago
3 hours ago
Security and freedom are mutually exclusive for the vast majority of non-technical people who will happily infect themselves over and over with malware.
4 hours ago
In my case, it is the fact that a secure and free (as in speech) alternative does not exist that leads me to believe that. And not in the sense that it’s theoretically secure, I mean in the practical sense that I cannot trust my parents to use any currently available “free” device and not immediately load it up with malware.
4 hours ago
> In my case, it is the fact that a secure and free (as in speech) alternative does not exist that leads me to believe that.
I don't think that is a logical statement. Just something doesn't exist, does not prove that it can't exist. You need a stronger proof than that to show that in my opinion. At some point, you have to empower your users and trust them to do the right thing.
4 hours ago
>I don't think that is a logical statement. Just something doesn't exist, does not prove that it can't exist.
Let me expand the claim to include the caveats:
>The fact so many technical people believe that security and freedom are mutually exclusive [under current technological/financial/political constraints]
>At some point, you have to empower your users and trust them to do the right thing.
All I know is, my and my parents’ quality of life is far better after switching them to devices where they are not empowered.
4 hours ago
You need to have a stronger argument than "it has never existed and doesn't exist now, but it MIGHT exist IN THEORY". That's an enormously weak argument. Borderline dishonest really.
7 hours ago
How do we know it is, besides apple marketing?
Given how many high profile politicians, journalists and businessmen have gotten their phones hacked, the iPhone is not unhackable.
6 hours ago
It's not that secure anyway, as evidenced by the multiple 1-click exploits going around on X this week.
5 hours ago
Compared to what, all the open source projects having exploits this week?
This is a silly argument to make. By pretty much any standard, the iPhone has really good security.
3 hours ago
> It's not that secure anyway, as evidenced by the multiple 1-click exploits going around on X this week.
Anyone know if those exploit(s) worked on iPhones with Lockdown Mode enabled?
* https://support.apple.com/en-ca/105120
* https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/fbi-stymied-by-a...
2 hours ago
"Lockdown Mode" is something the user enables. If the user wants to trade functionality for security, it can happen. Good.
The "no root access, no bootloader unlock, no installing your own Apple-unapproved software" bullshit is mandated by Apple, with no opt-out.
7 hours ago
It would be. You would have more eyeballs if you had an open bootloader instead of this program they're offering.
7 hours ago
Why not? In the default locked state it's just as secure as before, and unlocking it would require both physical access and your Apple ID.
3 hours ago
That’s exactly what NSO group and governments worldwide want you to keep believing.
2 hours ago
It isn't, the most secure phone is GrapheneOS.
And if you only take into account stock phones, stock Pixels are still above it as per exploit costs.
So they are basically 3rd or 4th place if you add some other Android flagships into the list.
3 minutes ago
GrapheneOS isn’t a phone
7 hours ago
By definition, it could be more secure if people actually would be able to inspect it. Is it regardless the most secure? Hard to say. GrapheneOS is quite secure, probably more.
6 hours ago
GrapeheneOS are both operating systems where a single party has the signing keys to run any software they want on your device at any time, and even remotely brick it.
I for one am not comfortable with anyone having that much power over something that is supposed to be mine, so they are the same to me. Untrustable black boxes.
6 hours ago
iPhone supports making and receiving credit card payments. Payment infrastructures demand tamper proofing for devices that handle payments.
7 hours ago
[dead]
7 hours ago
This is also why my current Macbook will be my last, I'm going back to Linux. No matter how superior M-series chips are the amazing hardware can't make up for the unbearable nanny software. So tired of Apple machines telling me what I should do. It's supposed to be the other way around.
6 hours ago
Almost every employer in my career ignored that I want to choose my hardware, and gave me a macbook, and I got them to compromise by giving me a pass to run whatever software I wanted. Every time I installed Linux on it, sometimes porting it myself with custom patches, on their time.
The greatest middle finger to Apple is freeing their hardware. Been at it since I built and booted a uCLinux kernel on my first iPod I got as a kid.
6 hours ago
Surely everyone sees this as an obvious trap to get researchers to sign NDAs for all research in advance, right?
Do not fall for it. Publish everything publicly after appropriate embargo periods.
5 hours ago
The title should be "Apple bribes security researchers with free devices"
5 hours ago
Dupe from 2020:
7 hours ago
Does this include... Israel being able to pwn any Apple device ?
7 hours ago
Israel can probably pwn any normal mobile phone because they invested a lot in this area, and has no reason to be afraid to do it. They are always shielded from consequences.
8 hours ago
Cool. Where can I buy one.
7 hours ago
Just gotta sign away your soul.
6 hours ago
"Help us make the nooses we put around your necks tighter."