Difference between revisions of "The iPhone Wiki:Community portal"

From The iPhone Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (archiving)
m (Discussion of takedown for Cassandra Fuzzer: indentation)
(47 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk Archive}}
 
 
{{see also|Unsolved problems}}
 
{{see also|Unsolved problems}}
  +
{{Talk Archive}}
  +
==The iPhone Wiki's SSL==
  +
As a security researcher, I have a bad habit of inspecting every SSL certificate I get in my hands, I couldn't ignore the fact that the SSL Certificate used on The iPhone Wiki is provided by CloudFlare (?). If it is, then you guys better buy (with help from some donations maybe?) a Comodo Positive Certificate. Those free certs provided by Cloudflare are shared, and I heard numerous stories about it being simply circumvented or replaced by man in the middle attacks as these certificates only protect a node kinda giving user the false security illusion, but the origin server remains unprotected unless you apply for the Full SSL feature of Cloudflare that requires you to also buy a certificate for the host (if applies).
  +
  +
As you can see, on the FREE certificates, the origin is still not encrypted thus rendering breaches in the system.
  +
  +
This is how Flexible SSL works: [https://scotthelme.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/cloudflare-flxible-ssl.png]
  +
  +
This article worth reading: [https://info.ssl.com/the-real-cost-of-a-cloudflare-free-ssl-certificate/]
  +
[[User:GeoSn0w|GeoSn0w]] ([[User talk:GeoSn0w|talk]]) 19:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  +
  +
:You seem to have a misconception about what CloudFlare offers on their plans.
  +
: * All "levels of SSL" ([https://www.cloudflare.com/a/static/images/ssl/ssl.png Off, Flexible, Full, Strict]) are available on all plans.
  +
: * What is only available to Business and Enterprise plans however, is the option to use your own certificate. Free and Pro plans have no choice.
  +
: That said, it should be easy enough to get a free valid SSL cert from [https://letsencrypt.org/ Let's Encrypt] to use between your server and CF so that you can switch to Strict SSL - even on a free plan.
  +
:
  +
: Also, I'm not sure if Saurik has reacted to this already, but I'm neither seeing a CF-issued SSL cert being used on the wiki, nor does theiphonewiki.com resolve to a [https://www.cloudflare.com/ips/ Cloudflare IP].
  +
: I'm seeing a RapidSSL SHA256 cert that looks like it has been issued on the 3. September 2015, and contains only "theiphonewiki.com" and "www.theiphonewiki.com" as common/alternative name.
  +
: — [[User:Siguza|Siguza]] ([[User_talk:Siguza|talk]]) 23:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  +
Strange, I am seeing a CF signed cert for "graham.ns.cloudflare.com". And is also verified and issued by "Avast! WebShield" (this is kinda misleading because it is generated by my Antivirus), but the CF has no sense to show up in my firefox if you say you use RapidSSL.
  +
Actually, I know what CF do and how their shared SSL work, as I use CF myself, and trust me, you can't compare your own cert with the one they provide. Shared certs are not actually yours, they will still point to CF...
  +
[[User:GeoSn0w|GeoSn0w]] ([[User talk:GeoSn0w|talk]])
  +
:It sounds like that's your antivirus/security software intercepting your HTTPS traffic. This is generally done with products that contain parental controls to block certain websites from children, but is frowned upon for privacy/security reasons. (For the record, I see the same thing Siguza sees.) --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 06:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  +
  +
Actually, I uninstalled the AV just to test, and it still shows the same cert even after browser cleanup.[[User:GeoSn0w|GeoSn0w]] ([[User talk:GeoSn0w|talk]])
  +
:To what IP does theiphonewiki.com resolve for you? For the record, I get 54.147.18.44. If someone out there has another valid cert for theiphonewiki.com, then that is quite a problem. — [[User:Siguza|Siguza]] ([[User_talk:Siguza|talk]]) 13:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  +
::Can confirm the IP address is 54.147.18.44 and I also see the same RapidSSL SHA256 CA - G3 cert being used. [[User:Mwoolweaver|MWoolweaver]] ([[User talk:Mwoolweaver|talk]]) 23:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
   
 
==iPhone-Elite==
 
==iPhone-Elite==
Line 21: Line 47:
 
==Easy tasks for new editors==
 
==Easy tasks for new editors==
 
* Finish converting the remaining error codes listed here [[MobileDevice_Library#Known_Error_Codes]] into the proper mach_return_t codes they should be displayed as. (convert the negative number listed into hex, strip any leading "FF" so it should be in the format "0xe80000" followed by two numbers) --[[User:Dirkg|Dirkg]] ([[User talk:Dirkg|talk]]) 22:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 
* Finish converting the remaining error codes listed here [[MobileDevice_Library#Known_Error_Codes]] into the proper mach_return_t codes they should be displayed as. (convert the negative number listed into hex, strip any leading "FF" so it should be in the format "0xe80000" followed by two numbers) --[[User:Dirkg|Dirkg]] ([[User talk:Dirkg|talk]]) 22:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 
==Date Format==
 
I see that [[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] started to unify the date formats in this wiki. While I like this to be consistent, actually we should've talked about what format to use before changing it. I like the d_mon_yyyy format though. I also saw that he removed the <code>&amp;nbsp;</code> between the date parts on the [[iFaith]] page that I added once purposefully. The reason was that when making the browser window small (or on the iPhone) that the date wraps to two lines, which is almost always undesired. The question is if we should do that everywhere too? Additionally, as we now seem to have a "standard" here, we should document it, so that new users know what format to use. -- [[User:Http|http]] ([[User talk:Http|talk]]) 17:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 
:I just made it consistent. If you want the <code>&amp;nbsp;</code> back, feel free to add it. I removed it as it did nothing (previewing on OS X). We should use the format I used throughout the wiki and not Dec 23, 2013 etc. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 18:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 
::<code>&amp;nbsp;</code> stands for "'''n'''on-'''b'''reaking '''sp'''ace". It is essentially a space, but with a property that prevents word wrap from occurring between the two words it's between. Look at [[Firmware Keys]] on a small enough screen (1024 across should do it). Your browser should preserve the space between the date "words". Now, go into the edit page and remove the <code>&amp;nbsp;</code> from everything in one table. Your browser will now word wrap the date "words". --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 00:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 
:What I actually want to do is use <code>{{[[Template:Start date|start date]]}}</code> instead of plain dates in areas where dates are used as a statistic; for example, [[Firmware]], [[Firmware Keys]], [[SHSH]], [[Timeline]], etc. Places where dates are used to record when something happened, for example on [[evasi0n7]], "On 28 December 2013...", should use the date flat out in the source. --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 00:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 
 
== Template documentation ==
 
Whenever using templates that are copied here from Wikipedia, I almost always forget the parameters of the template. I then have to open Wikipedia and search for the template. What I want to do it copy the template documentation from Wikipedia here. To work around the licensing issue, we can create our own template that you would include at the bottom of the copied documentation that says the documentation comes from Wikipedia (because Wikipedia uses [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License|CC-BY-SA 3.0]] which says our copied text must be under CC-BY-SA 3.0 ''and'' attribute Wikipedia and her editors. I can write the text for license template. Any ideas? Any opposition? If not, I'll begin in a few days. --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 00:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 
:I don't see why not. That's what I've seen done on other wikis. — '''[[User:Spydar007|<span style="color:#ff5a00;">Spydar007</span>]] [[User talk:Spydar007|<span style="color:orange;">(Talk)</span>]]''' 16:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 
 
== Category Security Researchers==
 
Hi all! i've created the category Security Researchers in order to cut down on the pages categorized as hackers as it apparently needs to be more exclusive. i've been adding the less known or inactive hackers from the hacker page but have not removed them from the hackers page. I feel that it should be a vote on who gets removed from the hackers page so my first suggestion is [[User:Fallensn0w‎]] as he has been inactive for a very long time and didn't do a lot in the first place. --[[User:Ph0enix|Ph0enix]] ([[User talk:Ph0enix|talk]]) 15:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 
   
 
== Email notifications? ==
 
== Email notifications? ==
 
Is it possible to get emailed when a watchlist page changes? I'd love that feature. [[wikipedia:mw:Manual:Configuration settings#Email notification (Enotif) settings|This looks relevant]]. --[[User:Beej|beej]] ([[User talk:Beej|talk]]) 08:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 
Is it possible to get emailed when a watchlist page changes? I'd love that feature. [[wikipedia:mw:Manual:Configuration settings#Email notification (Enotif) settings|This looks relevant]]. --[[User:Beej|beej]] ([[User talk:Beej|talk]]) 08:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 
== Ambiguous names ==
 
I feel like the names for [[Symlinks]] and [[Symbolic Link Vulnerability]] is a bit too ambiguous. Now, I don't anticipate there being much confusion, particularly since nobody really cares about 1.x anymore, but I would like to make the distinction clearer. I think both articles should be renamed, but I have no idea on what to rename them to (or even if you guys approve). I thought of using the CVE ID, but Apple doesn't provide one for [[Symlinks]] (or even any indication that they fixed it). ([[Symbolic Link Vulnerability]] was assigned CVE-2013-5133.) --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 17:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 
:They are referred to as the Symbolic Link by people like MuscleNerd and iH8sn0w so, in my opinion, they should be kept as their current names. — '''[[User:Spydar007|<span style="color:black;">Spydar007</span>]] [[User talk:Spydar007|<span style="color:gray;">(Talk)</span>]]''' 18:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 
::I don't mind if one of them keeps their current name, but there should be something to make the distinction clearer. --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 01:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 
 
== IRC Channel on Freenode ==
 
Howdy iphonewiki folks, I have #theiphonewiki registered on freenode, and am ready to have people come in (it's been ages since this idea has been brought up). Shall we open it? I'd like to get some ops in there to help out. --[[User:Haifisch|Haifisch]] ([[User talk:Haifisch|talk]]) 05:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 
<br />
 
I think we should make an IRC channel for this wiki. It can be either #theiphonewiki or #iphonewiki on freenode. The channel would be used for discussions, such as the TLC of the Jailbreak page for example. It would make getting things sorted a lot easier, since we could just ping each other different ideas. I know this idea was made before, but the channel never really got anywhere. What do you guys think of this idea? We would need to decide who has founder, op and voice etc. on the channel here. — '''[[User:Spydar007|<span style="color:black;">Spydar007</span>]] [[User talk:Spydar007|<span style="color:gray;">(Talk)</span>]]''' 06:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 
: This is idiotic. You just want to do it yourself cause you want power. We won't help you feed your ego. --[[User:Goeo|goeo_]] ([[User talk:Goeo|talk]]) 19:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 
:: You have never edited on this wiki in your life before so STFU. — '''[[User:Spydar007|<span style="color:black;">Spydar007</span>]] [[User talk:Spydar007|<span style="color:gray;">(Talk)</span>]]''' 05:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 
: Being that I own #theiphonewiki, the original channel in which the wiki's channel was going to be on, I have control over who's moderating the channel. One op will be me, I have 3+ years of IRC moderation experience (To be honest, Is this even CV worthy? :P) we can choose the other operators when the channel becomes somewhat popular. ps. Why make two topics for this? --[[User:Haifisch|Haifisch]] ([[User talk:Haifisch|talk]]) 08:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 
:: That most definitely is CV worthy. I've seen Spydar007 moderate a channel, it crashed in a week or so. Not to mention the channel wasn't even his, and he kinda took it over anyway. --[[User:Goeo|goeo_]] ([[User talk:Goeo|talk]]) 19:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 
::No, no, no. The community decides. Juts because Farahtwiggy asked you to register it before, doesn't mean you get to be an op there now. This was my idea (Dialexio can vouch). You have no control over who are ops there. {{unsigned|Spydar007|04:11, July 6, 2014 (UTC)}}
 
::: One "no" is enough. Farah, really, doesn't have much (if anything) to do with this, the channel was registered a year ago. Your childish response above does not show me that you can handle owning the channel, nor do the rumors of you abusing channel control in your personal channel. It's really not your idea, it may have just now come to your mind, but adaminsull and I have gone through this whole deal before (one year ago). Join me on #theiphonewiki if you'd like to chat this out. --[[User:Haifisch|Haifisch]] ([[User talk:Haifisch|talk]]) 08:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 
::::I don't know what's happening off of the wiki so I might only have part of the picture. I definitely don't see Haifisch as trying to steal credit for this idea, which actually was brought up about ages ago. I'm not much of an IRC guy, so my opinion might not have that much weight for a lot of this discussion, but I feel that the channel would be better in Haifisch's hands given his experience. Ownership/management/whatever for the IRC channel should certainly be open for discussion though. I really don't care too much about whoever gets to run it, as long as the person is someone that the community knows, respects, and trusts. (Same goes for the channel ops.) --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 17:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 
:It does not sound like a good idea to have an IRC channel for this wiki. It is useful for discussion of this wiki's articles to continue to be be done publicly on the wiki (on the appropriate talk pages), so that everyone interested in the wiki can easily contribute to the discussion, and so that there is a well-organized public record of discussions that we can all easily refer to. IRC channels are also very fertile breeding grounds for social conflicts and unhappiness (as we've seen already), which is helpful to skip. In any case, this should be discussed at [[The iPhone Wiki:Community portal]] instead of here - this page is for discussing modifications to the Main Page, and that one is for general discussions about TheiPhoneWiki. [[User:Britta|Britta]] ([[User talk:Britta|talk]]) 09:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 
 
== Moving to Canada ==
 
I'm moving this server in the next few days to a quality server in Canada. It'll be running inside a VM, so I'll also look into giving admins more access. Hopefully the periodic outages will stop. Maybe I'll add some SSL certs. --[[User:Geohot|geohot]] ([[User talk:Geohot|talk]])
 
:Nice, thanks! HTTPS would be great. --[[User:Britta|Britta]] ([[User talk:Britta|talk]]) 21:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 
::So we're not in canada yet?--[[User:Awesomebing1|Awesomebing1]] ([[User talk:Awesomebing1|talk]]) 20:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 
You should all be in Canada now, with 8&nbsp;GiB of Canadian RAM. We also have [https://theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Main_Page HTTPS], but it avoids the [[wikipedia:Squid (software)|Squid proxy]]. It's fine for people making edits but I don't plan on changing the default anytime soon. --[[User:Geohot|geohot]] ([[User talk:Geohot|talk]]) 04:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 
:Yay! Thanks as always George! Any plans on adding back SSH? There's a few things I'd love to have done. --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 21:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 
::Thanks [[User:Geohot|geohot]]! Hopefully now there will be less downtime ;p --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 
:Sweeeeeeeet. :D --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 15:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 
 
== Original iPad mini name ==
 
Seeing as we use (at least mostly) "iPhone" instead of "iPhone 2G" and "iPod touch" instead of "iPod touch 1G", I feel we should change how we reference the original iPad mini. The reason for adding the "1G" was because of the name conflict between pages. But we could probably fix that by moving [[iPad mini 1G]] to, say, [[iPad mini (first generation)]]. --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 03:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 
:Sounds good to me. "iPad mini (1st generation)" is fine, but for the sake of length I would go with either "iPad mini" or "iPad mini 1." --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 03:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 
::Agreed. "iPad mini" would follow the other 1st generation devices page. — '''[[User:Spydar007|<span style="color:black;">Spydar007</span>]] [[User talk:Spydar007|<span style="color:gray;">(Talk)</span>]]''' 04:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 
:::I also think this is a good idea because of how Apple is listing it like that too. I would say use "iPad mini". Another thought I did have is that it might confuse people with [[iPad mini]] and making them think that it is the page to list all the mini's. To correct this, I would suggest [[iPad mini (1st Generation)]] and roll that out across iPod touch, iPad and iPhone too. Just thought I'd put that out there to see what others think. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 10:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 
::::I feel "iPad mini (1st Generation)" is too long. "iPad mini" is fine IMO. — '''[[User:Spydar007|<span style="color:black;">Spydar007</span>]] [[User talk:Spydar007|<span style="color:gray;">(Talk)</span>]]''' 05:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 
:::::Except that "[[iPad mini]]" already exists. It's the overview page for the iPad mini, just as [[iPad]] is for iPads, [[iPhone]] for iPhones, and [[iPod touch]] for iPod touches. --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 20:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 
::::::If we do this, I suggest doing it for iPad, iPhone and iPod touch too. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 20:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 
:::::::I disagree. I like the usage of "iPod touch 2G", "iPod touch 3G", etc. Sure, drop the "1G" from the original iPad and iPod touch (and "2G" from the original iPhone), but don't change anything else. Unless we can come up with something other than "[[iPad mini (1st generation)]]", we should use that though. However, I don't like that title as it would look inconsistent with other devices. Wikipedia uses the parentheses to separate pages that would have the same name, but are about different topics. --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 
::::::::The only problem is that we can't use [[iPad mini]] for it's current purpose and the first generation. I would also suggest anything that is changed would be consistent throughout all of the devices. That is why I liked the [[iPad mini (1st generation)]] idea but then again, would not be good if it is not like that for all devices. I like [[iPad mini (1st generation)]] because it is how Wikipedia lists it and to be honest, it avoids confusion. There is one other idea I can think of but not sure I even like it that much, [[iPad mini (original)]]. This again should be for iPad, iPod touch and iPhone if we do this. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 22:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 
   
 
== Mobile Stylesheet ==
 
== Mobile Stylesheet ==
Line 112: Line 87:
 
I just added Zdziarski's blog to the wiki (with his permission). I would recommend to take this apart and make multiple sub-articles, like an article for [[BAGI]], another one for [[Dkey]], etc. and on the page [[File System Crypto]] itself, just write the overview, similar to what we have on page 16 of the Sogeti document (wasn't there a newer graphic somewhere?) with some short description. --[[User:Http|http]] ([[User talk:Http|talk]]) 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 
I just added Zdziarski's blog to the wiki (with his permission). I would recommend to take this apart and make multiple sub-articles, like an article for [[BAGI]], another one for [[Dkey]], etc. and on the page [[File System Crypto]] itself, just write the overview, similar to what we have on page 16 of the Sogeti document (wasn't there a newer graphic somewhere?) with some short description. --[[User:Http|http]] ([[User talk:Http|talk]]) 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
   
  +
== Renaming [[Factory Firmware]]? ==
== iOS 9.1 beta 4 build number? ==
 
  +
It's been brought to my attention that we don't really have anywhere on the wiki to document internal builds of iOS. Considering [[Factory Firmware]] consists of what are internal builds of iOS (with different software), I'd like to propose renaming it to [[Internal Firmware]], to broaden its scope a little more. Well, either that or create a brand new page for internal builds. What does everyone think about this? --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 06:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Apparently the build number for iOS 9.1 beta 4 on the wiki is 13B5136, but the number shown on my iPod touch 6G is 13B136. Can anyone else confirm this on their device before making any changes to the wiki?
 
  +
--[[User:Tp1194045441|Tp1194045441]]([[User talk:Tp1194045441|talk]]) 21:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 
  +
== Amendments to Rule 3.7 ==
:The 5 is just a false number to get people from beta 3 to beta 4 via OTA. You have the developer IPSW real version. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 21:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 
  +
I would like to propose some amendments to Section 3.7, "Do not make numerous, consecutive edits." Recently, device renames and page cleanup have been taking place. As of now, I would classify page moves/deletions as edits. In addition to the 50 edits, I wanted to know— how would you feel about adding an additional 10 actions for page deletions? Considering page deletions are an admin-exclusive action, I don't want this amendment to be misconstrued as admin abuse of power. (Yes, us admins are meant to be subject to this rule as well.)
  +
  +
Another amendment I would like to make involves vandalism. Although it hasn't happened on here for quite a while, vandalism can occur on the wiki. As things currently stand, reverting vandalism would technically count as an edit. I don't think that should be the case, so I would like to add some language that does not count reverting vandalism against the edit limits. --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 20:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
:I was actually planning on making a topic on this after we had finished with the device names cleanup.
  +
:I propose the removal of the rule entirely. This rule is stupid. I have not found any other wiki anywhere that imposes limits on the number of times a person can edit in a day or hour. It's absurd. Wikis are about collaborative editing. There should not be edit limits.
  +
:Whilst I understand that making lots of edits can clog up RecentChanges, this is not a problem when you can change RecentChanges to show the last 2000 edits in the past 90 days. I could make 500 edits in the space of an hour, and this will not be a problem since RecentChanges can show a rather large amount of edits.
  +
:The wiki is not ''incredibly'' active; it's the same few people editing. Vandalism is ridiculously unlikely, since everyone has to create an account to edit and that's a silly reason to prevent the number of edits a person can make. The majority of edits these days equate to Firmware and OTA Updates and details on Jailbreak page. These edits often take up more than 20 edits in an hour due to the growing number of devices. The edits to the device names that we are currently doing involve hundreds of edits. To have to watch how many edits we are making and to only be able to do a certain number is just silly. — '''[[User:Spydar007|<span style="color:black;">Spydar007</span>]] [[User talk:Spydar007|<span style="color:gray;">(Talk)</span>]]''' 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
::The rule was put into place is because the wiki has seen countless instances of "insignificant" edits (i.e. no major content, just adjustments like renaming "iPhone 4 GSM" to "iPhone3,1"), and there were a lot of complaints about this. We're not going down that road again. The main reason other wikis don't have a rule like this is probably because other wikis never deal with floods of edits just to rename one thing on such a frequent basis. On this wiki, a humongous change like this seems to happen every (other) year. (Why? This shouldn't be the case.) '''The rule stays''', but it's open for amendments— we can increase the limit count, for example. --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 21:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::I do think we should increase it. I'd propose either 75 or 100 daily edits and 30 major/minor (30 of each that is) per hour. Especially when we have a new firmware release, it is easy to go over 20 edits and if quick enough, could be done within an hour so I do think we should allow for more. I am with Spydar007 partly though as, although I can see why the rule was useful, we don't get enough editors to really cause an issue with this. If that changed, then we could review it. However, it isn't a make or break for me but I do think removing it would be a fairly good idea due to how few people edit this wiki now. I've also always thought that it would be better to fill Recent Changes on one day with big edits like that are currently taking place and then it be over, than do less edits that take a lot longer. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 10:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
::If that's the reason the rule was put in place, then it should ''definitely'' be removed. This rule does not prevent those edits from being made; it simply prevents the number of edits that can be made in a given time. With the same few editors, no one is going to be renaming "iPhone 4 GSM" to "iPhone3,1", or anything like that. And again, this rule doesn't prevent those edits from being made. I've never seen a large amount of these "insignificant" edits being made in any of the time I have had an account on this wiki. I'd say this is to do with the changing userbase of the wiki, and not anything else.
  +
::If you ''absolutely'' insist that the rule is kept, then it should be changed to allow 50 edits per hour. No daily limits. This allows for plenty of cleanup to be made. Of course, if we start to see people making silly changes, then a nice message on the user's talk page usually suffices, and a general discussion about why the user feels that page or file should be changed or renamed, and not the creation of a rule to allow you to block the user. This rule was added (and from what I can see, with no discussion) on December 12, 2011‎. I can see no violations of this rule in silly page moves before this date. I simply do not see a need for this rule, and I feel like it hinders the amount of actually constructive edits to the wiki. — '''[[User:Spydar007|<span style="color:black;">Spydar007</span>]] [[User talk:Spydar007|<span style="color:gray;">(Talk)</span>]]''' 11:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::There absolutely was a [[The iPhone Wiki:Community portal/2011#New rule proposal|discussion]]. It's not meant to prevent these types of changes, as they can be necessary; it's meant to keep the list of changes accessible/readable, since an edit that's either questionable or notable (e.g. information about a new OTA package format) can easily be buried among 94 edits of merely renaming "iPod touch 4G" into "iPod touch (4th generation)." That said, taking the feedback into account, I think raising the limits to 50 major/50 minor edits per hour, with a daily limit of 150 edits would make a fair compromise. (Not having the daily limit would mean that you can actually make up all of the last 2,400 edits in one day. Uh… No.) --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 16:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::That limit would be awesome. I really like that idea of 50 major/50 minor edits per hour and 150 daily limit. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 16:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
----
  +
  +
Okay, I think Axi0mX's contributions highlighted something about this rule: if someone dumps a bunch useful information across numerous pages, it can very easily affect them. Contributions like these were not the intended target of the rule, and people shouldn't be punished for trying to share such information. However, we do need a system in place to limit insignificant changes— we do not, and should not, need to rename a key page every two years. I want to propose changing this to allow informative edits, such as the keys Axi0mX shared, while imposing a limit on inconsequential changes.
  +
  +
The following blurb reflects the changes I wish to make, and will be edited as suggestions are implemented. (Emphasis is added to highlight changes, and will not be part of the rule.)
  +
  +
<div style="background-color:#FFF; background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.85); border:1px solid #AAA; padding:1em;">
  +
<ins>From time to time, the format of pages on The iPhone Wiki may require changes. For example, we determined it was necessary to name device pages by their internal identifier (e.g. [[N72AP]]), and use the model identifier in firmware key pages (e.g. [[Sugar Bowl 5F138 (iPod2,1)]]). However,</ins> making <del>a lot of edits</del><ins>format changes like this</ins> causes the [[Special:RecentChanges|Recent changes]] to be filled up<ins>, as numerous pages must be edited or renamed to follow the new format</ins>. <del>In addition to annoying those that subscribe to the Recent changes feed (via Atom or Twitter), this hinders</del><ins>By filling the Recent changes feed with insignificant changes,</ins> everyone's ability to discover new information and track down any malicious <del>changes</del><ins>edits is unnecessarily hindered</ins>.
  +
  +
Therefore, for every hour (resetting at :00), you may only make <del>50 major edits and 50 minor edits. Do not abuse the ability to mark edits as minor to perform additional edits— if your non-minor edits look considerably similar to minor edits you made in the same hour (or vice-versa), this may be considered abuse</del><ins>up to 50 format changes</ins>. In addition, you may make no more than 150 edits <ins>pertaining to such format changes</ins> per day (resetting at midnight UTC). Any unused number of edits <ins>pertaining to format changes</ins> will ''not'' "roll over" to the next hour or day. <del>Avoid "clumping" your edits.</del><ins>Any such edits should not be "clumped" together.</ins> (e.g.- Do not make 45 edits <ins>for format changes</ins> at 01:58, and then another 45 at 02:01.) Temporary exemptions can be made at the discretion of administrators and/or the community. <ins>Enforcement of this rule is otherwise subject to the administrators' discretion.</ins>
  +
</div>
  +
  +
This is a rough proposal, but I think this is going in the right direction. Are there any objections/suggestions? --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 02:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Sounds ok to me. I'd probably add firmware updates to the list of informative edits as they are pretty important. The only issue I can see with this is there will be a load of things not covered and could be confusing. I'm thinking maybe we could remove the rule altogether and if we get into an issue in future, add it back for certain things, such as key page template changes, although I hope we never do that again. If we must keep the rule, then I'd say keep it only for format changes. --[[User:IAdam1n|iAdam1n]] ([[User talk:IAdam1n|talk]]) 12:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
::Good point. Although I tried to provide examples of what should/should not be considered "informative," it can seem confusing. Considering that this rule was created pretty much solely because of the constant format changes, targeting those specifically should be fine. Unless someone has a second opinion, I'll revise the proposal tonight. (I don't have time right now to work on the text. I swear it's not because of Splatoon 2... Yet.) --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 16:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Wiki Logo Update 2017 ==
  +
I think it's time we update the logo in the top left corner again. iPhone 4S and iOS 5 are so 2011. And that font definitely isn't San Francisco. I'll see if I can get something worked out. --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 05:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  +
:I believe Dialexio has already been working on this, see his Twitter for examples. — '''[[User:Spydar007|<span style="color:black;">Spydar007</span>]] [[User talk:Spydar007|<span style="color:gray;">(Talk)</span>]]''' 06:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  +
::Yup, I've been working on this for a few days now. As of now, [https://twitter.com/Dialexio/status/910260179463221249 this] is what I have so far. I was actually planning to make a topic about this today, but I guess I got beaten to the punch. :P --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 17:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::I was thinking something with iPhone X, too. But I think it should face the other way. Unless there's two phones back to back, having one face left looks weird IMHO. --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 21:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::I couldn't find any (clean) images from Apple that had the iPhone X facing right. I see no issue with the direction that the phone faces, though I suppose a right-facing one would've been a cleaner replacement for the current logo. --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 00:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::On [https://apple.com/iphone/ apple.com/iphone], there's a big image of iPhone X: [https://images.apple.com/v/iphone/home/w/images/home/iphone_x_large.jpg iphone_x_large.jpg] (981x206). There's also [https://images.apple.com/media/us/iphone-x/2017/01df5b43-28e4-4848-bf20-490c34a926a7/overview/primary/design_corners/large.mp4 large.mp4] ([https://www.dropbox.com/s/v6ih5gf94m5f97y/080.bmp?dl=1 extracted image] - 1024x246). Would either of those work? --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 00:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::Honestly, I think using a landscape iPhone would look even ''weirder'' than a portrait-oriented iPhone facing left. (There really isn't anything wrong with the latter.) Aside from taking or viewing photos/videos (...okay, games too, but those aren't exactly included from the get-go), iPhones aren't depicted in landscape. I did make an attempt to see what I can do with the first image, but when I tried resizing the first image to fit the logo's 150x150 size, I felt that it became somewhat difficult to identify as an iPhone. It almost looks like it's just a random bar of colors. Considering the dimensions for the second, I imagine that it would have a similar result. --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 03:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::Well you would rotate them 90&deg; clockwise; I meant to specify that, but failed to do so. Anyways, considering the fact that iPhones have gotten bigger, there's not much we can do with only 150&times;150 pixels. In fact, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgLogo MediaWiki recommends no bigger than 135&times;135.] That documentation page does note, however, that we ''can'' use a bigger logo with some changes to the CSS. --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 00:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::::Okay, I just tried rotating it, and I don't like the result at all— it seems off-center since the iPhone image is thinner. For both my version and the suggested swap, I made minor edits to the gradient color and switched to SF Text instead of SF Display. (I put together a comparison [https://imgur.com/a/fZXlU on imgur].) I'm sticking with the iPhone X image I originally used for my spin on a new logo. --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 03:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::Well, the current logo has the iPhone at about the same angle as the second one. I think it only looks weird because it's too far to the left. I do prefer the angle of the first one (your original idea). However, I don't like the left facing direction; We do work in a left-to-right language. I do think, though, that a render of the lock screen is bad. Maybe I just prefer the current logo's use of the home screen because it adds color? I'm not particularly a fan of that wallpaper, but that's just me. I wonder if it would be possible to take all the 3D renders of iPhone X from Apple and build our own 3D model that could be positioned how we want it. I'll try that. In the meantime, I found this: [https://images.apple.com/v/iphone-x/b/images/overview/modal/design_expression_large.jpg design_expression_large.jpg] --[[User:5urd|5urd]] ([[User talk:5urd|talk]]) 23:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::::::The left-to-right argument doesn't make sense to me; it's not like I wrote the words backwards or aligned it like it's a right-to-left language. Many Western brands do have an icon/glyph/whatever to the left of the text— Crunchyroll, Dropbox, Microsoft, Seagate, and YouTube all do that. (Of course, some brands like American Airlines and Chase have theirs on the right.) I don't think an image with the Lock screen is bad, but the wallpaper Apple chose for their iPhone X photos is rather... loud. The image I picked would probably look better if the colors weren't so bold. (Don't get me wrong though— I don't mind using a different iPhone X image or swapping the text and picture around, but I couldn't find any iPhone X images that look or fit better, except maybe a shot of the front without any perspective.) --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 03:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
== New rule proposal: Internal subjects ==
  +
As we know, there are internal firmware builds that Apple uses to test their hardware. However, a wiki user reached out to me, concerned that there is incorrect information being added about these firmwares. I have no way to verify this information (and most probably don't either), so I would like to create a rule to require evidence in the form of an image or video for any substantial information about any such Apple internal subjects. This will help prevent false information being spread on the wiki.
  +
  +
<div style="background-color:#FFF; background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.85); border:1px solid #AAA; padding:1em;">
  +
Internal software and prototypes are rare to come across, and we welcome documentation about them. However, to maintain informational integrity, we do require evidence to be supplied with any substantial information that you have. For example, if you have a list of applications in an internal firmware, there should be an image or video showing them on the device. Any added information about internal subjects that does not comply with this is subject to removal, with account suspensions possible.
  +
</div>
  +
  +
The above proposal will be edited as necessary during this discussion. --[[User:Dialexio|Dialexio]] ([[User talk:Dialexio|talk]]) 16:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Discussion of takedown for Cassandra Fuzzer ==
  +
As you may know, the Cassandra Fuzzer, developed by [[Ih8ra1n|iH8Ra1n]] was taken down by [https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/User:IAdam1n iAdam1n]. I ([[Ih8ra1n|iH8Ra1n]]) believe that Cassandra should not have been taken down for the following reasons:
  +
  +
* Information (If someone wants to help with it, for example. )
  +
  +
* Other vulnerabilities (Read on)
  +
  +
I think that I would be leaving people without some necessary information. Example, Cassandra discovers a vulnerability in MobileSafari. Now, I make a page about said vulnerability. I should probably mention Cassandra found it. Then, people wonder what it is. So, they look for a wiki page and find it was deleted. So, now they wonder what Cassandra is, and they don't know. This, I think, is a problem. Hence, why there should be a wiki page for it. {{unsigned|Ih8ra1n}}
  +
  +
:With all due respect, the [[The_iPhone_Wiki:Ground_rules#Regarding_the_creation_of_pages_for_programs|ground rules]] specifically say that one should not create a page for a program that is upcoming. Moreover, it also states that the creator of a program should not be involved in its page's creation. I don't believe that Cassandra should be added to the wiki until it gains enough of a reputation independent of this place that someone else thinks to add it. [[User:Forestcorgi|Forestcorgi]] ([[User talk:Forestcorgi|talk]]) 00:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  +
  +
::You certainly have a good point. I'll have to rewrite it anyway because I erased the phone it was on (iPhone 4) for storage. RIP. [[User:Ih8ra1n|iH8Ra1n]] 10:43 AM, 13 April 2018 (EST)

Revision as of 15:31, 13 April 2018


Archives
 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 •

The iPhone Wiki's SSL

As a security researcher, I have a bad habit of inspecting every SSL certificate I get in my hands, I couldn't ignore the fact that the SSL Certificate used on The iPhone Wiki is provided by CloudFlare (?). If it is, then you guys better buy (with help from some donations maybe?) a Comodo Positive Certificate. Those free certs provided by Cloudflare are shared, and I heard numerous stories about it being simply circumvented or replaced by man in the middle attacks as these certificates only protect a node kinda giving user the false security illusion, but the origin server remains unprotected unless you apply for the Full SSL feature of Cloudflare that requires you to also buy a certificate for the host (if applies).

As you can see, on the FREE certificates, the origin is still not encrypted thus rendering breaches in the system.

This is how Flexible SSL works: [1]

This article worth reading: [2] GeoSn0w (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have a misconception about what CloudFlare offers on their plans.
* All "levels of SSL" (Off, Flexible, Full, Strict) are available on all plans.
* What is only available to Business and Enterprise plans however, is the option to use your own certificate. Free and Pro plans have no choice.
That said, it should be easy enough to get a free valid SSL cert from Let's Encrypt to use between your server and CF so that you can switch to Strict SSL - even on a free plan.
Also, I'm not sure if Saurik has reacted to this already, but I'm neither seeing a CF-issued SSL cert being used on the wiki, nor does theiphonewiki.com resolve to a Cloudflare IP.
I'm seeing a RapidSSL SHA256 cert that looks like it has been issued on the 3. September 2015, and contains only "theiphonewiki.com" and "www.theiphonewiki.com" as common/alternative name.
Siguza (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Strange, I am seeing a CF signed cert for "graham.ns.cloudflare.com". And is also verified and issued by "Avast! WebShield" (this is kinda misleading because it is generated by my Antivirus), but the CF has no sense to show up in my firefox if you say you use RapidSSL. Actually, I know what CF do and how their shared SSL work, as I use CF myself, and trust me, you can't compare your own cert with the one they provide. Shared certs are not actually yours, they will still point to CF... GeoSn0w (talk)

It sounds like that's your antivirus/security software intercepting your HTTPS traffic. This is generally done with products that contain parental controls to block certain websites from children, but is frowned upon for privacy/security reasons. (For the record, I see the same thing Siguza sees.) --Dialexio (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I uninstalled the AV just to test, and it still shows the same cert even after browser cleanup.GeoSn0w (talk)

To what IP does theiphonewiki.com resolve for you? For the record, I get 54.147.18.44. If someone out there has another valid cert for theiphonewiki.com, then that is quite a problem. — Siguza (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Can confirm the IP address is 54.147.18.44 and I also see the same RapidSSL SHA256 CA - G3 cert being used. MWoolweaver (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

iPhone-Elite

I think we should include all this old stuff before it gets lost: code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/. I mean the wiki articles there. Most infos should be already here, but I'm sure a lot of things are missing too. --http 15:02, 26 June 2012 (MDT)

Boot-args cleanup

We need to clean up the boot-args pages. First the technical part: What I understand is that iBoot loads the kernel. And when loading it, it can pass some parameters to select certain behavior. So this only works with an iBoot or bootrom exploit. I understand that in earlier firmware versions there was simply an iBoot variable, but that doesn't exist or work anymore, now passing theses args requires a different or patched iBoot. There are various parameters in different kernel versions. The description for these arguments is scattered over various places:

So what do we want to do about this mess? I suggest to move the current Kernel content to the redirect page Boot arguments (or to another new page, maybe boot-args). The current content of Boot-args (iBoot variable) and all other content should get merged into there. Then change all references to this new page and on the Kernel page write just something short with "main article there". What do you think? --http (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I like Boot Arguments. --5urd (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
One addition: Maybe we should use boot-args as the main page, because all links are written like that. --http (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Easy tasks for new editors

  • Finish converting the remaining error codes listed here MobileDevice_Library#Known_Error_Codes into the proper mach_return_t codes they should be displayed as. (convert the negative number listed into hex, strip any leading "FF" so it should be in the format "0xe80000" followed by two numbers) --Dirkg (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Email notifications?

Is it possible to get emailed when a watchlist page changes? I'd love that feature. This looks relevant. --beej (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Mobile Stylesheet

I was thinking recently, if geohot agrees to accept it, that I could make a mobile.css file in order to attempt to make a few changes to the site on mobile. This would make it so that it would not be so ugly and if possible, the text might be easier to read. What would everyone think about this? For one thing, I'd like to mobile the "Log out" off the black part of the screen and put it near the "Contributions" button or thereabout. --iAdam1n (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Instead of a mobile stylesheet to hack up the skin more (like the ios6 and ios7 skins do), I would create a whole new skin. I could write the PHP and JavaScript, and you can write the CSS. --5urd (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
If you mean a skin just for mobile, that would be ok but not sure how you could make it selectable with a mobile device but not on desktop. If you could do this, it could work but personally I think a mobile.css would be easier since it has to be previewed in the iOS simulator (that's the way I do it). I couldn't say I'd edit a page without being an admin (unless it's made that I could). --iAdam1n (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I was going to mention that MediaWiki includes a sorta-mobile theme called Chick, but it seems that's long gone. MW's changed a lot since I used it, but the way it worked was it subclassed MonoBook (so there was no need to duplicate the HTML template) and swapped its CSS for its own (screenshot).
Come to think of it, whoa, I even wrote my own skin called iWiki. Was never updated for MW 1.17, which made breaking changes to the skin API. I probably won't have the time to update it, but maybe someone else could? kirb (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea, since this is actually a wiki about mobiles. No idea why it hasn't been done already. — Spydar007 (Talk) 15:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
| There is a mobile pluggin for Media Wiki that will make it look very nice MWoolweaver (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I completed this a while ago but forgot to comment about it. If anyone has any improvement requests, feel free to list them and I'll take a look. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Bite-sized editing tasks

It seems fun to make a list of relatively easy useful edits that new editors can do who are interested in helping, maybe at The iPhone Wiki:Bite-sized editing tasks or a similar page, and link it from the homepage here. I'd include the following as a start:

  • Look at the list at Special:LonelyPages and figure out whether some of those pages should be linked within other pages on the wiki, and then go link them.
  • Check the links at Useful Links and remove broken/outdated sites and add relevant new sites (but don't spam your own stuff).
  • The iOS version table at SHSH should be listed in reverse-chronological order, with newest versions first instead of oldest versions first.
  • If you run into a scam site, add it to the table at Scam Jailbreaks and Unlocks.
  • If you're reading an article and some part of it is confusing to you, post a message on the "talk" page (click the "Discussion" tab at the top of the article) explaining your question or what you found confusing, so that other editors can use this as a suggestion for improving the article.

Ideas? Opinions? Britta (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

How to report problems

I saw people concerned on Twitter about the skin! Like iAdam1n said on Twitter, saurik just got a copy of the settings, images, and database from geohot and put them into a new site with an upgraded version of MediaWiki; he's asking geohot for a copy of the skin files. In general if you see problems or have requests for new extensions or other changes, it's totally fine to post them here and I'll see them and ask saurik to check it out. If something is more immediate and doesn't need discussion (like something missing, major errors, mysterious downtime, etc.), you can PM me or saurik on IRC (his IRC server is best, irc.saurik.com). Maybe good to post here too in those cases (if the site isn't down at the time) so other people know he's been alerted. Britta (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

More about how to report more immediate problems (or problems that require some level of privacy, such as a major security issue or "Britta has gone rogue") - if you don't use IRC, emailing me is also fine (britta@saurikit.com). Emailing saurik (saurik@saurik.com) won't be seen as quickly, but if you write a meaningful subject line (like "TheiPhoneWiki is giving error 403 upon login right now" or "Britta is putting glitter sparkle GIFs all over TheiPhoneWiki"), it'll likely be seen. Moving to a new server/admin can have some adjustment bumps but they can be fixed! Britta (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Apple internal content on the Wiki

I want to know what people think about having internal content on the Wiki. Some of the current content definitely needs some cleaning up and general editing. Should we publish information about internal firmwares? And is it okay to upload pictures of prototypes? Feel free to ask more questions. --Srb21103 (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking through The iPhone Wiki:Ground rules, it says "No posting of copyrighted material. Anything that could legally get us in trouble should not be posted, ever." I'm not sure what other precedent here has been. Britta (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

JailbreakCon mini-talks

Hi wiki people! I'm working on gathering people to do mini-talks (5-10 minutes) for JailbreakCon in June in San Francisco, and it would be cool to have some more people speaking who contribute to the community in ways other than tweak development. Work other than development is important work too, such as documentation. If anyone who has put some effort into improving TheiPhoneWiki can attend and would like to give a mini talk about working on the wiki, let me know via the contact form on the site. Britta (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File System Crypto

I just added Zdziarski's blog to the wiki (with his permission). I would recommend to take this apart and make multiple sub-articles, like an article for BAGI, another one for Dkey, etc. and on the page File System Crypto itself, just write the overview, similar to what we have on page 16 of the Sogeti document (wasn't there a newer graphic somewhere?) with some short description. --http (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Renaming Factory Firmware?

It's been brought to my attention that we don't really have anywhere on the wiki to document internal builds of iOS. Considering Factory Firmware consists of what are internal builds of iOS (with different software), I'd like to propose renaming it to Internal Firmware, to broaden its scope a little more. Well, either that or create a brand new page for internal builds. What does everyone think about this? --Dialexio (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Amendments to Rule 3.7

I would like to propose some amendments to Section 3.7, "Do not make numerous, consecutive edits." Recently, device renames and page cleanup have been taking place. As of now, I would classify page moves/deletions as edits. In addition to the 50 edits, I wanted to know— how would you feel about adding an additional 10 actions for page deletions? Considering page deletions are an admin-exclusive action, I don't want this amendment to be misconstrued as admin abuse of power. (Yes, us admins are meant to be subject to this rule as well.)

Another amendment I would like to make involves vandalism. Although it hasn't happened on here for quite a while, vandalism can occur on the wiki. As things currently stand, reverting vandalism would technically count as an edit. I don't think that should be the case, so I would like to add some language that does not count reverting vandalism against the edit limits. --Dialexio (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I was actually planning on making a topic on this after we had finished with the device names cleanup.
I propose the removal of the rule entirely. This rule is stupid. I have not found any other wiki anywhere that imposes limits on the number of times a person can edit in a day or hour. It's absurd. Wikis are about collaborative editing. There should not be edit limits.
Whilst I understand that making lots of edits can clog up RecentChanges, this is not a problem when you can change RecentChanges to show the last 2000 edits in the past 90 days. I could make 500 edits in the space of an hour, and this will not be a problem since RecentChanges can show a rather large amount of edits.
The wiki is not incredibly active; it's the same few people editing. Vandalism is ridiculously unlikely, since everyone has to create an account to edit and that's a silly reason to prevent the number of edits a person can make. The majority of edits these days equate to Firmware and OTA Updates and details on Jailbreak page. These edits often take up more than 20 edits in an hour due to the growing number of devices. The edits to the device names that we are currently doing involve hundreds of edits. To have to watch how many edits we are making and to only be able to do a certain number is just silly. — Spydar007 (Talk) 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The rule was put into place is because the wiki has seen countless instances of "insignificant" edits (i.e. no major content, just adjustments like renaming "iPhone 4 GSM" to "iPhone3,1"), and there were a lot of complaints about this. We're not going down that road again. The main reason other wikis don't have a rule like this is probably because other wikis never deal with floods of edits just to rename one thing on such a frequent basis. On this wiki, a humongous change like this seems to happen every (other) year. (Why? This shouldn't be the case.) The rule stays, but it's open for amendments— we can increase the limit count, for example. --Dialexio (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I do think we should increase it. I'd propose either 75 or 100 daily edits and 30 major/minor (30 of each that is) per hour. Especially when we have a new firmware release, it is easy to go over 20 edits and if quick enough, could be done within an hour so I do think we should allow for more. I am with Spydar007 partly though as, although I can see why the rule was useful, we don't get enough editors to really cause an issue with this. If that changed, then we could review it. However, it isn't a make or break for me but I do think removing it would be a fairly good idea due to how few people edit this wiki now. I've also always thought that it would be better to fill Recent Changes on one day with big edits like that are currently taking place and then it be over, than do less edits that take a lot longer. --iAdam1n (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
If that's the reason the rule was put in place, then it should definitely be removed. This rule does not prevent those edits from being made; it simply prevents the number of edits that can be made in a given time. With the same few editors, no one is going to be renaming "iPhone 4 GSM" to "iPhone3,1", or anything like that. And again, this rule doesn't prevent those edits from being made. I've never seen a large amount of these "insignificant" edits being made in any of the time I have had an account on this wiki. I'd say this is to do with the changing userbase of the wiki, and not anything else.
If you absolutely insist that the rule is kept, then it should be changed to allow 50 edits per hour. No daily limits. This allows for plenty of cleanup to be made. Of course, if we start to see people making silly changes, then a nice message on the user's talk page usually suffices, and a general discussion about why the user feels that page or file should be changed or renamed, and not the creation of a rule to allow you to block the user. This rule was added (and from what I can see, with no discussion) on December 12, 2011‎. I can see no violations of this rule in silly page moves before this date. I simply do not see a need for this rule, and I feel like it hinders the amount of actually constructive edits to the wiki. — Spydar007 (Talk) 11:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
There absolutely was a discussion. It's not meant to prevent these types of changes, as they can be necessary; it's meant to keep the list of changes accessible/readable, since an edit that's either questionable or notable (e.g. information about a new OTA package format) can easily be buried among 94 edits of merely renaming "iPod touch 4G" into "iPod touch (4th generation)." That said, taking the feedback into account, I think raising the limits to 50 major/50 minor edits per hour, with a daily limit of 150 edits would make a fair compromise. (Not having the daily limit would mean that you can actually make up all of the last 2,400 edits in one day. Uh… No.) --Dialexio (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
That limit would be awesome. I really like that idea of 50 major/50 minor edits per hour and 150 daily limit. --iAdam1n (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think Axi0mX's contributions highlighted something about this rule: if someone dumps a bunch useful information across numerous pages, it can very easily affect them. Contributions like these were not the intended target of the rule, and people shouldn't be punished for trying to share such information. However, we do need a system in place to limit insignificant changes— we do not, and should not, need to rename a key page every two years. I want to propose changing this to allow informative edits, such as the keys Axi0mX shared, while imposing a limit on inconsequential changes.

The following blurb reflects the changes I wish to make, and will be edited as suggestions are implemented. (Emphasis is added to highlight changes, and will not be part of the rule.)

From time to time, the format of pages on The iPhone Wiki may require changes. For example, we determined it was necessary to name device pages by their internal identifier (e.g. N72AP), and use the model identifier in firmware key pages (e.g. Sugar Bowl 5F138 (iPod2,1)). However, making a lot of editsformat changes like this causes the Recent changes to be filled up, as numerous pages must be edited or renamed to follow the new format. In addition to annoying those that subscribe to the Recent changes feed (via Atom or Twitter), this hindersBy filling the Recent changes feed with insignificant changes, everyone's ability to discover new information and track down any malicious changesedits is unnecessarily hindered.

Therefore, for every hour (resetting at :00), you may only make 50 major edits and 50 minor edits. Do not abuse the ability to mark edits as minor to perform additional edits— if your non-minor edits look considerably similar to minor edits you made in the same hour (or vice-versa), this may be considered abuseup to 50 format changes. In addition, you may make no more than 150 edits pertaining to such format changes per day (resetting at midnight UTC). Any unused number of edits pertaining to format changes will not "roll over" to the next hour or day. Avoid "clumping" your edits.Any such edits should not be "clumped" together. (e.g.- Do not make 45 edits for format changes at 01:58, and then another 45 at 02:01.) Temporary exemptions can be made at the discretion of administrators and/or the community. Enforcement of this rule is otherwise subject to the administrators' discretion.

This is a rough proposal, but I think this is going in the right direction. Are there any objections/suggestions? --Dialexio (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. I'd probably add firmware updates to the list of informative edits as they are pretty important. The only issue I can see with this is there will be a load of things not covered and could be confusing. I'm thinking maybe we could remove the rule altogether and if we get into an issue in future, add it back for certain things, such as key page template changes, although I hope we never do that again. If we must keep the rule, then I'd say keep it only for format changes. --iAdam1n (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Although I tried to provide examples of what should/should not be considered "informative," it can seem confusing. Considering that this rule was created pretty much solely because of the constant format changes, targeting those specifically should be fine. Unless someone has a second opinion, I'll revise the proposal tonight. (I don't have time right now to work on the text. I swear it's not because of Splatoon 2... Yet.) --Dialexio (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Logo Update 2017

I think it's time we update the logo in the top left corner again. iPhone 4S and iOS 5 are so 2011. And that font definitely isn't San Francisco. I'll see if I can get something worked out. --5urd (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe Dialexio has already been working on this, see his Twitter for examples. — Spydar007 (Talk) 06:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Yup, I've been working on this for a few days now. As of now, this is what I have so far. I was actually planning to make a topic about this today, but I guess I got beaten to the punch. :P --Dialexio (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking something with iPhone X, too. But I think it should face the other way. Unless there's two phones back to back, having one face left looks weird IMHO. --5urd (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't find any (clean) images from Apple that had the iPhone X facing right. I see no issue with the direction that the phone faces, though I suppose a right-facing one would've been a cleaner replacement for the current logo. --Dialexio (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
On apple.com/iphone, there's a big image of iPhone X: iphone_x_large.jpg (981x206). There's also large.mp4 (extracted image - 1024x246). Would either of those work? --5urd (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I think using a landscape iPhone would look even weirder than a portrait-oriented iPhone facing left. (There really isn't anything wrong with the latter.) Aside from taking or viewing photos/videos (...okay, games too, but those aren't exactly included from the get-go), iPhones aren't depicted in landscape. I did make an attempt to see what I can do with the first image, but when I tried resizing the first image to fit the logo's 150x150 size, I felt that it became somewhat difficult to identify as an iPhone. It almost looks like it's just a random bar of colors. Considering the dimensions for the second, I imagine that it would have a similar result. --Dialexio (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Well you would rotate them 90° clockwise; I meant to specify that, but failed to do so. Anyways, considering the fact that iPhones have gotten bigger, there's not much we can do with only 150×150 pixels. In fact, MediaWiki recommends no bigger than 135×135. That documentation page does note, however, that we can use a bigger logo with some changes to the CSS. --5urd (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I just tried rotating it, and I don't like the result at all— it seems off-center since the iPhone image is thinner. For both my version and the suggested swap, I made minor edits to the gradient color and switched to SF Text instead of SF Display. (I put together a comparison on imgur.) I'm sticking with the iPhone X image I originally used for my spin on a new logo. --Dialexio (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, the current logo has the iPhone at about the same angle as the second one. I think it only looks weird because it's too far to the left. I do prefer the angle of the first one (your original idea). However, I don't like the left facing direction; We do work in a left-to-right language. I do think, though, that a render of the lock screen is bad. Maybe I just prefer the current logo's use of the home screen because it adds color? I'm not particularly a fan of that wallpaper, but that's just me. I wonder if it would be possible to take all the 3D renders of iPhone X from Apple and build our own 3D model that could be positioned how we want it. I'll try that. In the meantime, I found this: design_expression_large.jpg --5urd (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The left-to-right argument doesn't make sense to me; it's not like I wrote the words backwards or aligned it like it's a right-to-left language. Many Western brands do have an icon/glyph/whatever to the left of the text— Crunchyroll, Dropbox, Microsoft, Seagate, and YouTube all do that. (Of course, some brands like American Airlines and Chase have theirs on the right.) I don't think an image with the Lock screen is bad, but the wallpaper Apple chose for their iPhone X photos is rather... loud. The image I picked would probably look better if the colors weren't so bold. (Don't get me wrong though— I don't mind using a different iPhone X image or swapping the text and picture around, but I couldn't find any iPhone X images that look or fit better, except maybe a shot of the front without any perspective.) --Dialexio (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

New rule proposal: Internal subjects

As we know, there are internal firmware builds that Apple uses to test their hardware. However, a wiki user reached out to me, concerned that there is incorrect information being added about these firmwares. I have no way to verify this information (and most probably don't either), so I would like to create a rule to require evidence in the form of an image or video for any substantial information about any such Apple internal subjects. This will help prevent false information being spread on the wiki.

Internal software and prototypes are rare to come across, and we welcome documentation about them. However, to maintain informational integrity, we do require evidence to be supplied with any substantial information that you have. For example, if you have a list of applications in an internal firmware, there should be an image or video showing them on the device. Any added information about internal subjects that does not comply with this is subject to removal, with account suspensions possible.

The above proposal will be edited as necessary during this discussion. --Dialexio (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of takedown for Cassandra Fuzzer

As you may know, the Cassandra Fuzzer, developed by iH8Ra1n was taken down by iAdam1n. I (iH8Ra1n) believe that Cassandra should not have been taken down for the following reasons:

  • Information (If someone wants to help with it, for example. )
  • Other vulnerabilities (Read on)

I think that I would be leaving people without some necessary information. Example, Cassandra discovers a vulnerability in MobileSafari. Now, I make a page about said vulnerability. I should probably mention Cassandra found it. Then, people wonder what it is. So, they look for a wiki page and find it was deleted. So, now they wonder what Cassandra is, and they don't know. This, I think, is a problem. Hence, why there should be a wiki page for it. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ih8ra1n (talk). Please consult this page for more info on how to sign pages, and how to fix this.

With all due respect, the ground rules specifically say that one should not create a page for a program that is upcoming. Moreover, it also states that the creator of a program should not be involved in its page's creation. I don't believe that Cassandra should be added to the wiki until it gains enough of a reputation independent of this place that someone else thinks to add it. Forestcorgi (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
You certainly have a good point. I'll have to rewrite it anyway because I erased the phone it was on (iPhone 4) for storage. RIP. iH8Ra1n 10:43 AM, 13 April 2018 (EST)