Talk:Tethered jailbreak - Revision history

Beej: /* re-write */ new section

2011-10-23T01:38:47Z

‎re-write: new section

2010-08-13T15:53:49Z

2009-10-16T05:02:13Z

2009-10-16T04:02:58Z

2009-10-16T04:02:03Z

2009-10-16T03:05:29Z

2009-10-16T03:05:18Z

2009-10-16T02:49:46Z

Yes should be work to make it untethered. But ultra secret..

2009-10-16T01:01:08Z

New page: I suggest no work should be done on making it untethered until the iphone 3,1 is released.

New page

I suggest no work should be done on making it untethered until the iphone 3,1 is released.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:38, 23 October 2011
Line 10:		Line 10:

	anyway, info was a bit more "loose" at the time, and we have definitely taken measures to secure all of our private information. If you were implying that any new secret info that we find will be seen by nitrokey, then we are already screwed by that logic. [[User:ChronicDev\|ChronicDev]] 05:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)		anyway, info was a bit more "loose" at the time, and we have definitely taken measures to secure all of our private information. If you were implying that any new secret info that we find will be seen by nitrokey, then we are already screwed by that logic. [[User:ChronicDev\|ChronicDev]] 05:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	== re-write ==
		+
		+	it looks to me like this whole page could use a re-write, but as i'm not offering to do it, i suppose i shouldn't complain ;) in any case, how should we incorporate info on BigBoss's new "semitethered jailbreak" package? see http://thebigboss.org/semitethered-jailbreak --[[User:Beej\|beej]] 19:38, 22 October 2011 (MDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:02, 16 October 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Really I think no work at all since nitrokey published the exploit being kept in secret I think no work should be done so there is no risk of any compromise. and secondly if nitrokey got access to an unpublished exploit twice I think that there should be more security about all of this. Since nitrokey stole the a baseband exploit and a bootrom exploit. Soz about my rambling Im very tired [[User:Revolution\|Revolution]] 04:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)		Really I think no work at all since nitrokey published the exploit being kept in secret I think no work should be done so there is no risk of any compromise. and secondly if nitrokey got access to an unpublished exploit twice I think that there should be more security about all of this. Since nitrokey stole the a baseband exploit and a bootrom exploit. Soz about my rambling Im very tired [[User:Revolution\|Revolution]] 04:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	actually [[NitroKey]] stole 2 baseband exploits from devteam and then 1 boootrom exploit from us, so they burned a potential unlock vector making them bigger douches :P
		+
		+	anyway, info was a bit more "loose" at the time, and we have definitely taken measures to secure all of our private information. If you were implying that any new secret info that we find will be seen by nitrokey, then we are already screwed by that logic. [[User:ChronicDev\|ChronicDev]] 05:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:02, 16 October 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	thats probably what revolution implied :P [[User:ChronicDev\|ChronicDev]] 03:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)		thats probably what revolution implied :P [[User:ChronicDev\|ChronicDev]] 03:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

−	Really I think no work at all since nitrokey published the exploit being kept in secret I think no work should be done so there is no risk of any compromise. and secondly if nitrokey got access to an unpublished exploit twice I think that there should be more security about all of this. Since nitrokey stole the a baseband exploit and a bootrom exploit. [[User:Revolution\|Revolution]] 04:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)	+	Really I think no work at all since nitrokey published the exploit being kept in secret I think no work should be done so there is no risk of any compromise. and secondly if nitrokey got access to an unpublished exploit twice I think that there should be more security about all of this. Since nitrokey stole the a baseband exploit and a bootrom exploit. Soz about my rambling Im very tired [[User:Revolution\|Revolution]] 04:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:02, 16 October 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:

	thats probably what revolution implied :P [[User:ChronicDev\|ChronicDev]] 03:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)		thats probably what revolution implied :P [[User:ChronicDev\|ChronicDev]] 03:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	Really I think no work at all since nitrokey published the exploit being kept in secret I think no work should be done so there is no risk of any compromise. and secondly if nitrokey got access to an unpublished exploit twice I think that there should be more security about all of this. Since nitrokey stole the a baseband exploit and a bootrom exploit. [[User:Revolution\|Revolution]] 04:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:05, 16 October 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	No work done until iPhone3,1? That's a stretch. How about no public-work / for release until iPhone 3,1. If no jailbreakable iPhone3,1 in July, then no upgrade (for me) from iPhone2,1 :) . [[User:Iemit737\|Iemit737]] 02:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)		No work done until iPhone3,1? That's a stretch. How about no public-work / for release until iPhone 3,1. If no jailbreakable iPhone3,1 in July, then no upgrade (for me) from iPhone2,1 :) . [[User:Iemit737\|Iemit737]] 02:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

−	thats probably what revolution implied :P	+	thats probably what revolution implied :P [[User:ChronicDev\|ChronicDev]] 03:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:53, 13 August 2010
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:05, 16 October 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:

	No work done until iPhone3,1? That's a stretch. How about no public-work / for release until iPhone 3,1. If no jailbreakable iPhone3,1 in July, then no upgrade (for me) from iPhone2,1 :) . [[User:Iemit737\|Iemit737]] 02:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)		No work done until iPhone3,1? That's a stretch. How about no public-work / for release until iPhone 3,1. If no jailbreakable iPhone3,1 in July, then no upgrade (for me) from iPhone2,1 :) . [[User:Iemit737\|Iemit737]] 02:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	thats probably what revolution implied :P

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:49, 16 October 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	I suggest no work should be done on making it untethered until the iphone 3,1 is released.	+	I suggest no work should be done on making it untethered until the iphone 3,1 is released. {{unsigned\|Revolution\|01:01, October 15, 2009 (EST)}}
		+
		+	No work done until iPhone3,1? That's a stretch. How about no public-work / for release until iPhone 3,1. If no jailbreakable iPhone3,1 in July, then no upgrade (for me) from iPhone2,1 :) . [[User:Iemit737\|Iemit737]] 02:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)