[citation][nom]house70[/nom]Apple made the terms and conditions you mentioned, they could have bent their own rules for the greater good (and their own). It's not about that, it's about their stupid pride and claim they're secure by default; when someone points at the holes in their shoes, this is the answer.[/citation]
This is nonsense. He didn't get banned for finding the problem, pointing the problem out, or even telling them the problem, all of which he should have done. He got banned for deliberately adding an app to the app store which can leave any users phone vulnerable.
By banning him, Apple could have anticipated that it would get far more publicity and it's therefore clearly not an act of 'denial' or being 'controlling' or trying to stop people 'knowing about it'. They banned him to make it perfectly clear that while finding a virus is acceptable, deliberately spreading said virus is not. There is a big, big difference.
If someone finds an exploit in some software which can be exploited, they should simply develop a proof of concept, and privately demonstrate it to the company. Contrary to one or two misinformed comments on this comments section, he did not do this, but instead decided to go one step further and leave the mass market vulnerable to the virus. This is obviously, clearly irresponsible, and Apple were left with no choice but to stop him doing it
Ironically, Charlie Miller has repeatedly stated that iOS is far more secure than Android, so again that proves this isn't about trying to cover things up, it's just their only choice.