Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New "Secure" Xbox Cracked In Under A Week

Posted by timothy on from the salmon-swimming-upstream dept.

ilsie writes "Numbnut says it all in his post at xboxhacker.net. To quote his post, 'On behalf of the Xbox Linux Team, I am proud to announce that at 10:45BST the 'v1.1' secure version of the Xbox was proven to be running arbitrary BIOS code in a normal 256KByte modchip - with no additional hardware required. In short, in under a week we were able to normalize the new box to enable it to interoperate with Linux properly.'"

6 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. EULA changes? by KernelHappy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By any chance, has anyone checked to see if Microsoft modified the EULA when they released the new version of the Xbox? It would be interesting if they stuck anything in there that would strengthen their ability to prosecute and/or seek damages for circumvention of the protection scheme.

    --
    -- Button up, your ignorance is showing
    1. Re:EULA changes? by mbogosian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry but reverse engineering is pretty well established....

      Here, here! (Of course it's not legal anymore, but that's splitting hairs....)

      Whatever happened to legitimate forms of deterrance? If I crack open my TiVo, I void the warranty. I can dick around all I want, but if I screw something up, I have to pay to have it fixed. This is enough to deter most of the technology-ignorant public from screwing with their hardware, and it's a method which has been around for years. Has everyone forgotten about this?

      --

      moto411.com
    2. Re:EULA changes? by Galvatron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the reason Shelled is trying to draw a distinction is that arguably, EULA's are not contracts. There is no meeting between the two parties, no chance for negotiation, no signature, the EULA is perpetual, and a price is paid for a physical good (making it look very much like a sale, covered by first sale doctrine rather than contract law). Of course, IANAL, but from the articles that get on Slashdot every now and again, it sounds like the courts haven't quite settled on an answer as to whether EULA's are legitimate contracts or not.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    3. Re:EULA changes? by DragonMagic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Problems I find with your argument:

      1) You assume a person reads an EULA. Even though a contract can still hold up if you don't read it, you're still required to sign it. If you never read an EULA or agree to it through a click, then how are you agreeing to it? Simply because they say "By using this product, you agree to our terms"?

      2) Another problem with EULAs are many of the corporate ones are too one-sided. They're not responsible for anything, but you're fully responsible to follow all their rules. Some even say you can't even talk about the product or take pictures of it or anything without permission, but that they can use your information for their company's marketing research without your permission to do so. (that is, they can use it to market you magazines whether or not you asked for them)

      3) You don't need to be 18 to buy many EULA products, and to have a contract valid, either a person 18 or older must agree to it, or the parent or guardian of that under-18 person must agree to have that person agree. When a 17 year old purchases an Xbox and takes it home, goes through the licensing agreements on his own, then starts playing, how can Microsoft say the EULA can still affect him?

      4) There are many people who play video games who cannot read, or cannot read English. So EULAs written in English are still valid even though the other party cannot understand them? I do believe that contracts have to be signed by parties that understand them, and if it's in another language, the translator must sign off on them. I could be wrong, of course.

      But again, EULAs are hardly contracts in the sense of contracts, but more of agreements that you won't do bad things to the company issuing the product. I can't wait until EULAs are struck down and normal copyright laws apply to the products (or patents to hardware).

      --

      Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
  2. What contract did I sign? by Inoshiro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't recall the EB guys hounding me to sign some sort of contract when I bought my Xbox. In fact, I don't recall any sort of contract in the box with it that I signed.

    The closest thing I could find was the ABOUT XBOX in the dashboard, which talks about how the softvare on the Xbox is protected by copyright law. Since I have no intention of pirating the Xbox dashboard, I think I'm legal.

    Plus, once I own something, it's mine. As I've said before, I could rip off the top of my Xbox, put all my night soil in there, and grow flowers from the rich loam. Microsoft can't say anything to me about the use of it, because I own it.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
  3. Re:This actually _is_ funny. by Bishop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Very expensive process, but doable.

    Cost is always part of the doability [sic]. When designing a secure system part of the equation is how hard it would be to crack the system. It is possible to brute force RSA, but that does not make RSA any less secure. The same concept applies here. If it would cost more to crack the system then it would to buy an insider, then the system is, for most purposes, secure.