The iPhone Wiki is no longer updated. Visit this article on The Apple Wiki for current information.

The iPhone Wiki:Community portal/2014

From The iPhone Wiki
< The iPhone Wiki:Community portal
Revision as of 19:52, 1 March 2015 by IAdam1n (talk | contribs) (Ordering by date.)
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an Archive Page
This page is meant for archiving purposes only, do not modify the contents of this page! To see the list of archive pages, go to the main page for this archive. If you have a reply for one of these discussion topics, move it back to the main discussion page and edit it there.
Other Archives • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 •

Apple A8 chip

According to Wikipedia, the A8 chip's product code is not "T7000", but "APL1011" (see the "product code" line of the infobox). If you look at the page for the A7, it's product code is "S5L8960X". Where does "T7000" even come from? --5urd (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Take a look inside one of the IPSWs for the iPhone 6 or iPhone 6 Plus. ;) --Dialexio (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
All CPUs before the A8 are titled using the "S5L####" scheme, but everywhere I look, it's actually "S5L####X". It's that way with the kernel version also. In addition, the T7000's product code is "APL1011" and the T7001's is "APL1012", but the IPSW's manifest files title them "T7000" and "T7001". I'm not sure how it is listed in the kernel version, but it's probably the same as the IPSW, so we could wait on those until we know for sure. But, for the pre-A8, should we switch? --5urd (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hacker page

I would like to be added to the list of hackers for my work with the Private Dev Team and the Chronic Dev Team in addition to my release of the Phoenix Semi-Untethered. --Ph0enix (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you find any exploits? --Haifisch (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No. phyrrus9, a team member found the vulnerability. I am the one who exploited it. --Ph0enix (talk)
I can back up this "claim". I was a part of it. --5urd (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Whatever happened to this? --phyrrus9
So this went cold and i am going to again request that this change be made. --Ph0enix (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm gonna say no. I don't see any notable accomplishments to merit this. --Dialexio (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
No. The first step would be to get to the category hackers. You can get there by finding a vulnerability that is used with an exploit in a jailbreak - or by writing a new exploit. Remember that it's not allowed to add yourself to that category. Instead of finding a vulnerability you could also be member of either The iPhone Dev Team or Chronic Dev or evad3rs. After being in that category, the next step would be that you're famous enough from all those hackers there to get to the main page. The people chosen are discussed here. --http (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Mainpage "iPhone Hackers" List

I think the "iPhone Hackers" List of the mainpage needs to be updated. Here are some people that need adding:

Are there any others you can think of? — Spydar007 (Talk) 16:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the list except I do not think that SquiffyPwn has done anything huge, except help with p0sixspwn and i0n1c shouldn't be added. Just my opinions. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Me, 5urd and phyrrus9 have definitely earned our keep refer to http://theprivatedevteam.blogspot.com/2012/04/ios-51-semi-untethered-jailbreak.html --Ph0enix (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, you are not that well know, like pimskeks etc. --iAdam1n (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with iAdam1n. You are not known enough. — Spydar007 (Talk) 14:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding me?? we have worked with many "well known" hackers and are in constant communication with people like p0sixninja! this is a joke we dont have to be "well known" to be influential hackers who not to mention have been running support and hacking in the community for 4 almost 5 years! --Ph0enix (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Support does not count. I am sticking with my original decision. AFAIK, you released no jailbreaks or found any new exploits, not as well know as the main hackers. Feel free to share what you have found/made if you want and also you can see what others say. --iAdam1n (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
are you kidding me!! http://theprivatedevteam.blogspot.com/2012/04/ios-51-semi-untethered-jailbreak.html that is the reason i have high quality followers like posixninja and nitotv just because you guys are too young in the community to know about our major help to the community doesnt mean we are it is a closed sourced exploit but very functional and based off of redsn0w that implements our exploit now if you wanna get your thumb out of your buts and pay attention it would be great --Ph0enix (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Why is this being brought up again? The answer was no before, and it's going to remain no for the reasons http stated before. I should add that who follows who on Twitter doesn't really mean anything— I have nitoTV, chronic, iH8sn0w, and winocm as followers, but that doesn't mean this was a legitimate jailbreak by any means. --Dialexio (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Jeez idk maybe because we RELEASED A WORKING TOOL AND KEEP BEING BLOWN OFF BY INFERIOR ASS HOLES WHO REFUSE TO ADMIT IT! when you create a tool then challenge it till then we should be put on the list for discovering and implementing a previously unknown userland exploit and building a tool to ease the process... --Ph0enix (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Your insults aren't helping your credibility. Just saying. --Dialexio (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
well if i wouldn't have to have been asking for so long then i wouldn't be so upset my credibility is there whether you choose to ignore it or not is up to you. our tool is a working tool and we discovered and implemented a exploit that should be grounds for our names to be on the list,and the followers point is that we may not be well known but the people who follow us are legit people. quality over quantity. --Ph0enix (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
And now, your arguing with the administration. The answer is no. End of. — Spydar007 (Talk) 09:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Coming back to this old discussion, the decision at that time was to not even include iH8sn0w there, so I don't see a reason to include much lesser known people. For the overview list, we already have the Category:Hackers. The main page is just for the 5-10 currently most important people. Regarding names, there should be a wide consensus of the people listed. If you ask me today, I'd comment like this:
  • i0n1c is not working on public jailbreaks, so don't include
  • geohot has retired from the scene, he could get removed, but as founder of this wiki and best contributor to the scene of all time, better leave him there
  • winocm new shooting star, could get added
  • iH8sn0w could get added with all the tools created
  • all others I would not add or only added to category mentioned above
Remember that the list should be really short, so adding anyone would most probably mean to remove someone less important. Also, number of followers on Twitter doesn't mean anything; all these people follow me too and I wouldn't claim to be that important. This shouldn't discourage anybody not on this main page to continue his/her work. If this is causing these feelings, I think we should remove the list there entirely. --http (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks http I feel like in that case their should be a new category made for the people who have worked very hard but by those standards do not fit in that category, something like security researchers for the people who are doing a lot of behind the scenes work and certainly deserve some recognition somewhere on here. Just a thought though. --Ph0enix (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"GSM" Replacement Proposals (cont.)

So this entire discussion came up because we need to remove "GSM" from models, because there are many models nowadays where the non-GSM model or Global or whatever model, all support GSM. One suggestion was the FCC number, but I think we already agreed that this is out of discussion (only used within USA and nobody refers to this number). So we have to use either

  • The Axxxx number (like A1332 for the iPhone 4). This is how Apple identifies their devices.
  • The ap number (like n94ap or just short N94). This is the internal name and used in internal references, like in the iBEC or iBSS filenames within an IPSW. (This is also what iH8sn0w has on his stickers on the devices.)
  • The 1,2 number (like iPad1,1 for the iPad 1G). This identifier is used in the IPSW filenames.

There are several issues with using one over the other:

  • Some devices (iPad 1G, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5c, iPhone 5s to be exact) have multiple Axxxx numbers for the same ap number/1,2 number. For example the iPad 1G: A1219 (WiFi model) and A1337 (GSM model) both have k48ap / iPad1,1. So only the Axxxx number could be used to replace the "GSM" identifier.
  • The iPhone 4 has for A1332 two ap numbers/1,2 numbers: A1332 stands for both n90ap/iPhone3,1 and also for n90bap/iPhone3,2.
  • The iPod touch 5G has the same 1,2 number for two ap numbers/Axxxx numbers: iPod5,1 stands for both A1421/n78ap and also for A1509/n78aap.

I understand the point from iAdam1n somehow that we should make it consistent and change it everywhere in the same manner. The question is where to change what. So where do we use these terms?

  • The biggest affected change would be the key pages, so any change there should be carefully considered. Currently we use something like: "InnsbruckTaos 11B554a (iPhone 5c Global)". So the discussion here is just about the change in the brackets. For the devices where no different hardware versions exist, I think the current naming is ok. So let's just continue using that. Only where different (sub-)devices exist for the same main model (like for the iPhone 5c) and they require a different firmware file, then we need to specify it. So we need to add something after the "iPhone 5c" to specify the difference. For older devices, we should leave it as it is, because it works very well there. For example the iPad 1G WiFi and GSM require different firmware, but can be differentiated that way. And we can't use the ap number, because both versions use k48ap, respectively iPad1,1. So I think we should leave the old devices as they are. For newer devices, like the iPhone 5c, there are only two variations for the firmware, but six different Axxxx numbers and we don't want to list all of them in the firmware name. We also cannot use "GSM" for the reason mentioned at the introduction. I would prefer to use the ap number there, but that yields to problems. In case of the iPod touch 5G, we have two models (A1421/n78ap and also A1509/n78aap). Fortunately both use the same firmware, so we don't have to specify anything. But if Apple would release an additional model that would require a different firmware, we would have to specify the name even here and we can't add a name like "n78ap+n78aap". The name iPod5,1 there seems to be the obvious choice, as it is contained in the ipsw name already, so it is unlikely that Apple will change that. The only question is the format then. My choice would be to keep it short, something like "InnsbruckTaos 11B554a (iPhone 5c [5,4])" instead of the current "InnsbruckTaos 11B554a (iPhone 5c Global)". We shouldn't repeat the word "iPhone" there. And we shouldn't remove the "5c" of the original name.
  • We also have some hardware lists, for example on the key pages titles where we list under iPad 2: Wi-Fi, GSM, CDMA, Wi-Fi (A). They link directly to our ap-pages, for example the "Wi-Fi (A)" name links to "k93aap". I think we don't need to change this. For the iPhone 5c, we have GSM and Global and they also link to the ap-pages. The link remains there, so we would only change the name. I suggest to use the same short name as in the key page extension, so something like my suggested "[5,4]" for example (instead of "GSM").
  • On the Models page, we have the column "Variant", which also lists "GSM" and "Global" etc. That would also need to change. I suggest to leave it for older devices where "GSM" is a valid differentiation. For newer devices we might list the bands it supports or something else.
  • On hardware pages, like iPhone, we also have names and links in the title bar. For devices that have different sub-devices (like the iPhone 4 and iPhone 5/5c/5s) I suggest to rename the title names to the ap-names, as they link to the respective page. I would not change the title "iPhone 3G" to "N82ap" although it links there. So this change would only apply to sub-titles.

--http (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Include iPhone 4 in the change and use same format everywhere on the wiki. I agree that we do not need to change devices with only one variant such as iPhone 3GS. --iAdam1n (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree on that. 3GS, 3G and the 1st iPhone are anyway devices where I do not see too many wiki-related changes in the future.--M2m (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't like how the abbreviated form of "iPad3,4" looks— I understand wanting to keep "iPad 4" in the name, but I can't come up with alternatives besides going with only the identifier. (Another issue is that MediaWiki's markup parser doesn't seem to like square brackets in links— I tried using <nowiki />.) Having thought it over for a few days, I'm more receptive to changing all multi-variant devices (i.e. including the iPhone 4), but my concern about the Recent changes getting flooded with page moves still exists. The page moves should be done on "quiet" days, when the wiki doesn't see much activity. That being said, this is my understanding of the proposed changes. Does everyone agree with the following?
Do let me know if I missed something. --Dialexio (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your idea Dialexio, but make every page use iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1) etc. Of course if pages use iPhone 4 (GSM) now, change that to iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1) or iPhone 4 (3,1). I would suggest moving 10 pages per day for the iPhone 4 to avoid flooding. I do not want some pages to include the AP identifier and some others iPhone3,1 for example. --iAdam1n (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Several comments:
  • The square brackets were just an idea, nothing agreed on that yet. And yes, let's forget this idea if it has problems with MediaWiki.
  • The beginning of the name should remain, otherwise we're getting inconsistent with other pages. I agree with iAdam1n on this. To keep it short, my favorite would be something like "iPhone 4 (3,1)" then. But to make it more clear, "iPhone4 (iPhone3,1)" is also ok to me. If you wanted to leave the first part away and just use "iPhone3,1", then we would have to rename ALL pages (that's also an option).
  • Regarding flooding, I prefer that we do all changes at once, at an agreed date/time, done by Dialexio. Maybe in two steps: first step to change the few hardware pages plus one page of each device of the key pages. In the second step the rest. This would ensure that any misunderstandings get catched in the first step, before all pages are renamed. I don't like to have 20 edits per day that I have to go through. Better all at once, but only after agreement of all.
  • Yes, we can do iPhone 4 too, if that't the only missing one. It was a misunderstanding on my part for iPad GSM/WiFi, as this doesn't have different firmwares (only on hardware pages needed).
  • Regarding the proposed listing of the bands on the Models page, Variant column, we could only list the bands that are different to make it short.

Can we list here what pages would be affected by the changes? Feel free to edit this list here within my comment. Here's what I have in mind:

The key pages would get moved without redirect and all references updated. The references should also be in this list above. Add it to the list if I forgot anything. --http (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is fine. I said the 10 a day to avoid a big flood, but I do not mind either way. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:13, January 1, 2014‎ (UTC)
Looks good. I amended the list to include the iPads as well. --Dialexio (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
So most of you seem to agree on the the generic change now. But what is missing is the exact naming. We have three variations still in discussion:
  1. "iPhone 4 (3,1)"
  2. "iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1)"
  3. "iPhone 4 3,1"
  4. "iPhone 4 iPhone3,1"
I just noticed that we cannot use the round brackets, because this entire part is already enclosed in round brackets - otherwise we would have nested brackets and in grammar I think you have to use square brackets which are not allowed in MediaWiki. So this leaves us with #3 and #4. #3 looks silly without the brackets, so we probably have to use #4 as Dialexio suggested. --http (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with #4, looks better as I feel that #3 needs some sort of brackets if we used that. --iAdam1n (talk)
Wow, time really flies when you sleep all day. I've missed a lot. Ok. I'm happy we decided to use the firmware moniker instead of something else. Personally, I don't like #1 because it just looks weird IMO. In addition, #1 and #2 would require the use of brackets ((iPhone 4 [3,1])) which would require the use of <nowiki/> all over the place, and that will get not only ugly, but annoying. I agree #3 looks weird. However, #4 just looks redundent. I personally would like just iPhone3,1, but if I would have to put my vote on one of those last two, it would be #4. --5urd (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
One last comment: We could also just use "iPhone3,1" (leaving the leading "iPhone 4" completely away). That would have two advantages and two disadvantages:
  • + shorter
  • + future-proof; if we ever decide to rename the rest as well, this is the way to name it
  • - somehow inconsistent with non-ambiguous other key pages (although ambiguous and non-ambiguous pages are different now anyway)
  • - less easy to understand from the name what device it is (but the iOS version is also not directly visible)
--http (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
To me, that makes it worse. Why can we not use the rounded "()" brackets? I mean, it will only be duplicated in the key page urls, in which if it must be, just do "iPhone 4 iPhone3,1". Does not seem too bad to me. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
We don't want to use parenthesis because then we get double parenthesis (Telluride 9A334 (iPhone 4 (3,1))). We would have to use braces (Telluride 9A334 (iPhone 4 [3,1])), but MediaWiki chokes when there's braces in a link unless you use <nowiki/>; and that would mean everywhere there's a firmware link. --5urd (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That is what I suggested in my reply... As for your first disadvantage, it only applies to the iPads where Apple has gotten confusing. Actually, now that I think of that, option #4 above does look nice. However, I still don't like the redundency of having iPhone in there twice. And as I said before, options #1 and #3 just look weird. So we're stuck at either redundency or looking weird. But then again, it wouldn't be redundent for the non-existent iPad key page links where Apple decided to be annoying with their firmware monikers. --5urd (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Could we not just use the parenthesis but just not in the key page URL's? I mean, "iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1)" but in the urls for key pages, Telluride 9A334 (iPhone_4_iPhone3,1)? That seems fine here. The underscores are currently there anyway. --iAdam1n (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This seems fine to me… Well, aside from the underscores. Other than that, we're actually already doing the same thing until the changes are implemented. (Key pages say "(iPhone 4 GSM)" while other parts of the wiki say "iPhone 4 (GSM model).") --Dialexio (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that "iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1)" does look the nicest, and I don't really feel like it's redundant. I also like the idea of just saying 'iPhone3,1'. If either of those options doesn't work, it might be good to do something like "iPhone 4; iPhone3,1" or "iPhone 4 | iPhone3,1".--CompilingEntropy (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The underscores were stated due to the key page URL's use that. I did not mean use that throughout. Was just to give an example, Dialexio. --iAdam1n (talk) 13:16, January 2, 2014‎ (UTC)
So we have to decide between
  1. "Telluride 9A334 (iPhone 4 iPhone3,1)" (name on link could be "Telluride 9A334 (iPhone 4 [iPhone3,1])" or whatever fits best in the context)
  2. "Telluride 9A334 (iPhone3,1)"
I would prefer #2 (for advantages/disadvantages see list above), but could also live with the other one. Votes? --http (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer #1 because it would be more consistent. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Count my vote for #2. I could go either way, but option #2 looks nicer. But just to double-check (yet again), we are using "iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1)" in places like Firmware's headings, right? --Dialexio (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Headings/titles/links: we didn't decide on that, but I think we can put whatever fits best in the context of a page. So that's a 'yes'. --http (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This has been completed. --iAdam1n (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Replacing old/broken download links

I have noticed on pages like evasi0n and p0sixspwn that some of the dwonlaod links no longer work because the developers have taken the revision of the software down. Rather than leave them there, I suggest we replace the links with ones that can be accessed (such as with ones in my MEGA). For example, version 1.0 of evasi0n was taken down from MEGA and no longer exists. However, I have version 1.0 saved in my MEGA Drive so I could replace the broken links with ones to downloads in my MEGA Drive. What do you guys think of this? — Spydar007 (Talk) 10:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not like this idea as it breaks copyright. We normally just put a line through with style="text-decoration: line-through;". --iAdam1n (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I know but I think that people should still be able to download the old versions. — Spydar007 (Talk) 11:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Except for evasi0n7, latest versions work best and with evasi0n7, all links work. We do not want unofficial links because of copyright. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
This contradicts your actions a bit— I've never seen official MEGA links for newer releases of evasi0n7, yet you filled it in for some of them. But I digress… In all honesty, I wouldn't mind, as long as no copyrights are violated. There should be some sort of distinction that it's not an official link though. --Dialexio (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The MEGA links that I have added myself have been from evasi0n.com with "view source" in a browser. The earlier releases, 5urd added them so I don't know about those. --iAdam1n (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, it is only violating copyright if the jailbreak tools cost money. Since they are free, it is not violating copyright. — Spydar007 (Talk) 15:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Copyright laws are always in place, regardless of how much something costs, unless the creator waives their copyrights. --Dialexio (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
So, should I go ahead a do it? I could put a warning triangle symbol before it so that it is shown to be an unofficial link. — Spydar007 (Talk) 14:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I say no. On JailbreakQA, one moderator was told by MuscleNerd to remove a hosted version that included the edit for 7.0.6 before evasi0n7 1.0.7 was released. There is no need for older versions since the latest works, with the exception of evasi0n7 1.0.8 but 1.0.7 links are still valid. I strongly disagree to add this. Also it should have at least a week on discussion. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That sounds more like MuscleNerd not wanting tampered copies of evasi0n7 to float around. That being said, I don't know whether he or the rest of the evad3rs would be fine with rehosting untouched copies of their files though. --Dialexio (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

geeksn0w

I think we should make a page for geeksn0w. It is a jailbreak tool used by a significant amount of users who have iPhone 4's. I don't see why there isn't a page already. What do you guys think? — Spydar007 (Talk) 15:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I personally like the idea. I would at least like to see it added to iPhone 4 on the jailbreak page. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, we should add it to the Jailbreak page and create a page on it. What do you think of creating a page for the developer/hacker, BlackGeekTutorial? He is just about to start working on iFaith for iOS 7.
Personally, we don't need a page on him I don't think until he has made a lot. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
On the page, I am thinking of having download links to previous versions (in my MEGA drive) since BlackGeek doesn't give out other links. What do you think? — Spydar007 (Talk) 16:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we should only use official links but thats just me. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I know we should use official links, but BlackGeek doesn't keep the links active. Also, he doesn't use MEGA. He just hosts it in the portfolio for his website. But he uses Adfly links to host them too. Do we really want Adfly links here? — Spydar007 (Talk) 12:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
If that is the official link, I would say yes. --iAdam1n (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Cyberelevat0r

I think we should make a page for Cyberelevat0r (i0n1c's 7.1.x Untethered Jailbreak). There is multiple proof that he might release it and we can fill it with information about all other hackers that have 7.1.x untethered jailbreaks as well. What do you think? — Spydar007 (Talk) 05:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No. If (and it's a massive if) it gets released, then ok. Not until. --iAdam1n (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.theiphonewiki.com/w/index.php?title=The_iPhone_Wiki:Community_portal/2014&oldid=44696"