New "Secure" Xbox Cracked In Under A Week

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.'"

Comments

EULA changes?

[KernelHappy]

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.

Re:EULA changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being anal with EULAs. If you violate an EULA, you're just voiding the warranty.

Re:EULA changes?

[afidel]

Sorry but reverse engineering is pretty well established, if it wasn't then modern pc's wouldn't exist as Compaq would not have been able to reverse engineer the IBM bios and AMD would not have been able to reverse engineer the Intel CPU. Now they could try to come after them with the DMCA, but AFAIK these mod chips do not allow access to any protected content, but rather allow you to run arbitrary software on the hardware

Re:EULA changes?

[Shelled]

It never occurred to me until reading the last sentence of your post, doesn't this in essence give Microsoft (and others) the power to create law? By standing behind EULAs it could be argued that governments give corporations a blank cheque to create legislation. "Put it in your EULA and we'll enforce it." (My EULA: IANAL)

Re:EULA changes?

[Anonymous Coward]

AMD didn't reverse engineer Intel's CPUs. They used to work together on processors.

Re:EULA changes?

[interiot]

Yes, that's definitely a desired attribute of contract law. Since laws that are on the book won't ever be able to cover everything or be able to keep up with the variety of private interactions that can occur that would need legal coverage, private parties can both agree to specific terms that go beyond what's explictely on the books. There is a limit to how extreme contracts can get (eg. you can't say that if you don't hold up your end of the agreement, that the other person gets to kill you), but there's a wide area there for "creating law".

Re:EULA changes?

[alienw]

The reason modchips don't fall under the DMCA is because they don't bypass access controls. The dmca defines protection devices as something that "effectively controls access to a work". Since you can't access data on a game CD any better with a modchip, it doesn't bypass anything. IANAL, though, so I might be wrong.

Re:EULA changes?

[dattaway]

If I remember right, Mr. Gates himself related the story of reverse engineering MSDOS by dumpster diving for source code. There was also the incident of disk compression technology that was lifted from another company. To say that common people can not raise the hood of their own car to see how it works or put in a new engine might be called hypocritical.

Re:EULA changes?

[grahamkg]

IANAL...

The EULA in essence is a contractual agreement. It is legal and supported in a court of law as long as it meets certain criteria: competent parties; subject matter; consideration; mutuality of agreement; mutuality of obligation.

You read a EULA from MS. My guess is you're a competent party, as is MS. The EULA sets forth rules, establishing what you both will or won't do. You give them money, they give you rights. You agree to it or not. You are both obliged to follow the terms of the EULA.

The EULA can potentially be invalidated if its obligations are against the law. Likewise, if consideration is unduly biased towards one party, that too could invalidat it.

Check out law a little bit. You might find it interesting.

Re:EULA changes?

[Squarewav]

the EULA is not the problem, Its the fact they have to disable the copy protection (illegal in the USA) in order for it to even load linux,mame or whatever.

I find it silly that people are risking large fines or maybe even jail time just so they can run linux on it, come on its a low end pc. I know what your thinking "MS losses money on every sale" that has to be the biggest urban legend wile its true when the thing was first released they lost a few dollars, but like all consoles once they pay for the initial production costs they break even on the sale, hell if you have 200$ to spend on a linux system walmart.com has lindows equipped thing that's far more useful then a xbox and it counts as an actual linux sale

Re:EULA changes?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

AMD didn't reverse engineer Intel's CPUs. They used to work together on processors

Well, I wouldn't say "work together"... :-P

AMD had some fantastic processes for -- at the time -- incredibly fine micron CMOS fabrication. Intel had dink to show in the fab department. In order to build a 386 faster than 16 MHz, that wouldn't require raised-floor equipment to keep cool, they needed a license on AMD's fabrication technology.

AMD exchanged this license, in exchange for a license on 286 and future technologies. The grounds for what these future technologies were comprised of were the grounds for the Intel/AMD legal battles of the '90's. The courts agreed this was inclusive of the i386 microcode, and the rest... is history

Re:EULA changes?

[mbogosian]

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?

Re:EULA changes?

[Galvatron]

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.

Re:EULA changes?

[DragonMagic]

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).

Re:EULA changes?

[shepd]

>Instead you'll have a bare minimum sit down with a sales negoiator. You and he will talka bout the contract you will be shortly signing.

That's the idea. If it becomes a major PITA (and this is) to buy products that require a EULA, then people won't. They will prefer to buy products covered by basic copyright law (like GPLd products) and will be happy that they didn't waste their time buying products that take _forever_ to buy.

Re:EULA changes?

[vsprintf]

You read a EULA from MS. My guess is you're a competent party, as is MS. The EULA sets forth rules, establishing what you both will or won't do. You give them money, they give you rights. You agree to it or not. You are both obliged to follow the terms of the EULA.

Well, only one party is really bound since MS EULAs always give them the right to modify the terms whenever they feel like it.

Re:EULA changes?

[belroth]

Not to mention how stores would love to spend 30 mins negotiating to sell a $300 dollar item... especially in the Christmas shopping insanity!

It may become a new form of anti-MS (for example) activism:
when you have a few hours going into into a shop and going through all the contract details until you decide that they are too onerous and decline to accept the terms offered.

Re:EULA changes?

[dreamword]

You raise good issues. However, things are not precisely as you state (or, perhaps, as they should be).

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"?

It doesn't matter if the person reads the EULA, mostly because there's really no way to prove whether or not the person read the EULA. In this context, clicking "accept" is as good as a signature. If you're curious, see ProCD v. Zeidenberg, one of the first clickwrap cases. It's a very good opinion reasoning why clickwraps should be binding.

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)

They are definitely "one-sided" in that one side has more responsibilities to the other side. However, it's not true that you're just signing away your rights for nothing; if you were, there would be no binding contract. You're signing away your rights to do certain things in exchange for them letting you use their software. The right to use their software does not cost just what you pay for the box at the store; it costs what you pay for the box at the store PLUS your agreement to follow the license terms.

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?

Good one. I'm not sure. There are some kinds of contracts that minors can make, but I don't think this is one of them. If there's no contract, it's possible that the minor might not be held to the license terms, and we'll have to rely on under-18ers to do our dirty work. On the other hand, it's possible that the minor can't assert the right to USE the program at the same time as they assert the right NOT TO BE BOUND to the terms of the license agreement. Anybody have a better grasp on this area? I don't know if there have been any minor-clickwrap cases. Same goes for English-illiterate clickwrap cases; I just don't know if anyone's litigated it yet.

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).

They're definitely contracts, in any legal sense of the word. It sucks (I think first sale doctrine should apply, and there should be some consumer-software default rules set legislatively that are hard for software companies to EULA around), but that's how it is.

Re:EULA changes?

[Kwil]

It doesn't matter if the person reads the EULA, mostly because there's really no way to prove whether or not the person read the EULA. In this context, clicking "accept" is as good as a signature. If you're curious, see ProCD v. Zeidenberg, one of the first clickwrap cases. It's a very good opinion reasoning why clickwraps should be binding.

Okay. Now show me (and the judge) the proof that:
A. The agreement said what they say it said.
B. I clicked accept.

Remember that programs including installs can be buggy, and sometimes even the bugs seem temporary.

"Honest, your honour, there was this blank screen that popped up with two blank buttons on it. I didn't know what to do so I clicked one and everything seemed to work out okay. No, I don't know how it could have happened, I'm no programmer. I do remember having to swap out my memory chips shortly after though 'cause they seemed to be doing funny things at the time."

Re:EULA changes?

[starling]

That was the BASIC, which was based on a listing of Dartmouth BASIC which they found in the trash. All MS did was port it to a different processor. They bought MSDOS from another company.

That's right, MS's original flagship products weren't written by MS. They started as they meant to continue.

Re:EULA changes?

[dreamword]

OK! No problem. IANAL.

A. You still have that CD you installed from, right? Let's just pop it in and see what it does. My guess is it'll display a EULA saying what I say the EULA says, and an accept button that needs to be pressed before you can go on.

Oh, you don't have the CD you installed from? OK, here's a CD that was pressed from the same master as the one that was sold to you. Same goes.

B.
Me: "Did you use the program?"
You: "Yes."

Then I show that you need to click Accept in the software to use the program.

You: "But there was a bug. I never saw the agreement or any 'Accept' button."

Me: "But you used the program anyway, even though you knew it was under license? And you didn't make any efforts to find out what the license terms were?"

You: "Yeah."

You can see where this is going. You'll never be able to prove that the EULA you saw said something different than I say, since you and I both know it said the same thing.

Now, what happens if there was actually a bug and you actually never saw or accepted the EULA? I'd say it's a tossup. This is just a guess; there's no case law on point that I know of. If there was any material along with the software indicating that it was subject to license, you'd probably lose; it would probably then be your responsibility to find out what the license terms were, and not use the software until you were successful. If nothing ever said it was subject to license, you'll probably win, since you had nothing telling you it was subject to license.

If you say there was a bug, it'll be on you to prove that there was. If you can reproduce it, you're probably home free on that point.

Re:EULA changes?

[Billly Gates]

True, but the original IBM's were not under EULA. Only pc-dos was.

Mistake on IBM's part. If they did this then the clones never would of existed.

Re:EULA changes?

[g4dget]

That's the idea. If it becomes a major PITA (and this is) to buy products that require a EULA, then people won't. They will prefer to buy products covered by basic copyright law

That is, if the industry heavyweights don't collude to standardize on a set of restrictive terms, to the disadvantage of customers. That's what has happened in many other areas, e.g., banking, mortgages, etc. Furthermore, many EULAs are only available after purchasing and opening the products.

It would really make a lot of sense for the government to define standard terms of sale for computer software. If companies want different terms, they should be required to present a written contract prior to purchase and have it signed by both parties.

Re:EULA changes?

[perky]

why should buying a legal contract be any more difficult than buying a physical box? I went on holiday a few weeks ago and an hour before I left I realised that my travel insurance had expired. I purchased a travel insurance contract in about 15 minutes online with no difficulty. Essentially buying a piece of paper is no more of a "PITA" than buying anything else.

Re:EULA changes?

[zenyu]

You don't remember correctly. It was a patent infringement case.


Microsoft might have settled the case in part because patent infringment. But I ditinctly finding STAC's copyright string searching one of the Windows 3.1? binaries.

But the BASIC, STAC, and last year's French case have nothing to do with reverse engineering which is a standard practice taught in school. These are cases of plagarism which happen all the time in big companies but are not standard practice and are sometimes even litigated successfully.

And while I'm no Microsoft fan, even the best code reviews can miss copied code since you're not really looking for this kind of thing. If you see a foreign copyright string in the code and the programmer says it's licenced or he has told legal they need to licence the code you trust him; most programmers can be trusted, it's just the law of large numbers that lead to a 0.1% cheat rate to mean there are 50 in a team of 50,000.

Re:EULA changes?

[mbogosian]

of course you never consider the fact that _you're_ technologically ignorant too? most people are, even the people that think they're not. if you're running a PEECEE, you're guarenteed to be.

Eh, maybe you're right.... Not to split hairs (again), but strictly speaking, I don't think my TiVo even falls into the colloquial definition of a PEECEE (which typically denotes a (W)Intel-based microcomputer architecture of some sort). It uses a PowerPC 403GCX embedded controller (offering several distinct advantages over a 403GA or 403GC including increased cache size and support for EDO RAM, while maintaining a compatible initialization state with those models; it should be noted however that the 401 series PowerPC is more forgiving about misaligned data: the 401 core has hardware support for misaligned half-word and word-sized loads and stores, whereas misaligned accesses on the the 403 series causes an alignment interrupt; yes, relying on this behavior of the 401 did get me into portability trouble when I was a Comp. Sci. student; but hey, live and learn, right?). It also runs a multi-user-capable, time-sharing kernel (Linux).

But what would I know? I'm just a technologically ignorant PEECEE user.

Re:EULA changes?

[msaavedra]

You think that the end of EULAs won't affect GPL software?...There are EULA's for the major Linux distros (RH, Mandrake, etc). They are more complex than "just the GPL, please".

You are seriously overstating this. I looked up the Redhat 8.0 EULA and it is not more complex than the GPL. It is actually quite a bit simpler. It basically states that all of Redhat's brand names and logos are not GPL'ed, they are protected by trademark. This obviously has nothing to do with the GPL software which they distribute. They then have the standard disclaimer denying responsibility for damages, etc. This sort of language is in the GPL as well. Again, no big deal.

The only related problem I can see GPL'ed software having is if the aforementioned disclaimer is thrown out in court. Leaving programmers (many of them hobbyists) open to damages in lawsuits would be disastrous to our ability to freely trade code.

Re:EULA changes?

[clare-ents]

I don't see how this works for cases like this

I buy Software X
I do not agree to the EULA
- I have rights to reverse engineer and backup the
software on the CD
I modify the software to remove the EULA clickwrap.
I then install this modified software.

At what point did I either break the law or agree to the EULA ?

Re:EULA changes?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

PS - Wasn't there something about Intel's customers (like the DoD) wanting a second source supplier for the x86 line as well?

Yeah, you're right... This was one of Intel's motivations for the tech transfer with AMD. IIRC, it was the removal of second-source restrictions that encouraged Intel to try and back away from the agreements as AMD saw them.

Dude, watch out for the fireclown. He doesn't like you very much.

I beleive him to be as diminished as myself in this continuum... He sits out front of the Starbucks by the Pacific Stock Exchange, these days. Sad, really. I give him change.

If you secure it, they will come...

[LowAmmoWarning]

and crack it.

any chance?

[rizawbone]

could these xbox hackers come over and get my ms office from asking for my cd every time i do a 'find' in explorer?

that would REALLY impress me.

Re:any chance?

[scott1853]

Hey, I'm not the only one that had that problem.

Too bad I can't remember exactly what I did to fix it.

Some things I tried though were a re-install Office and uninstall the Windows Installer and re-installing the latest version of it.

I think one or both of those things fixed it. If I remember correctly though, the problem was caused by my deleting of the Office folder without uninstalling it.

Re:any chance?

[Tony-A]

"Install on Demand".
Sounds good, but turns out to be a major pain.
Do a Custom install, and set everything either to Not Available or to Run from My Computer or possibly from Network.
Now you get to play the guessing game of what you do and do not want installed.
This is what is known as "user friendly".

This actually _is_ funny.

[TrueKonrads]

It brings me to this following tought: You can't protect anything that user has physical access to. Same situation is observable amongst CD 'copy (mis)protection' . Smart lads crack it in one week session. Maybe people should stop wasting money on copy proections and focus instead on actual product?

Re:This actually _is_ funny.

[TrueKonrads]

Since the careful ekrout actually read my comment, he shurely must have missed word physical. P.S it's a 0 score comment

Re:This actually _is_ funny.

[Bishop]

You can't protect anything that user has physical access to

I think that the designers of the IBM 4758 cryptographic coprocessors might disagree. The IBM4732 is supposed to be tampre proof.

Ofcourse if you were to say that you can't protect anything that users have access to at a reasonable price. Then you would be correct. You would also be correct to say that security is hard and must be integrated into the system from the first design stages and not hacked on later.

Re:This actually _is_ funny.

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

I think that the designers of the IBM 4758 [ibm.com] cryptographic coprocessors might disagree. The IBM4732 is supposed to be tampre proof [rutgers.edu].

And yet, an application on the IBM4732 was hacked a little under a year ago. Granted it wasn't the processor as such, but a very important application that is delivered with the processor. Getting the whole system right is hard.

If you want more material on why tamper proofing is difficult; Ross Anderson's team at Cambridge is a good resource. (And they have performed a number of nice hacks Markus Kuhn's optical eavesdropping for example).

Re:This actually _is_ funny.

[Henry V .009]

It is not tamper proof. The vulnerability is the enivronment sensors, which can be neutralized. The worst design flaw is that the IBM4732 doesn't have a block of thermite sitting on top that destroys the hardware in case of tampering. That wouldn't be fool-proof, but would mean that your lab would destroy a number of them in the initial 'figuring out how it works' stage. (Even better than thermite is a larger bomb that kills your scientists along with destroying the device. But scientists are replacable, so all you are really doing is raising costs.) Without the thermite, your lab only needs to procure one extra, take it apart, find all the tamper sensors and figure out a method to neutralize them. After that, you can take apart all the IC's with impunity. And really at this point your work is done. You duplicate the RAM contents, figure out the private keys (they have to be stored somewhere), and you have all the information. Very expensive process, but doable.

A very interesting historical parallel is the British bomb defusers, who worked on defusing failed German bombs. At first it was dangerous, but still relatively easy. Afterwards the Germans starting figuring out ways to booby-trap the bombs just in case they didn't go off right away. This was defeated. And finally they engineered bombs specifically to kill bomb defuse teams. Even this was defeated. A very interesting history that includes many of the greatest acts of bravery during the war.

Re:This actually _is_ funny.

[Bishop]

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.

Re:This actually _is_ funny.

[Henry V .009]

No, it doesn't mean that the system is secure. It just means it is secure as practicable. Quite a difference. But it's also kind of meaningless, as the cost of buying an insider is hard to estimate. Depends on what you'll willing to do. Torture is very cheap.

By the way, doable is a real word. Doability seems like a valid extension. Its meaning is obvious and it serves a useful purpose. Feasible and feasiblility are possible synonyms, but they don't have the connotations. 'That is feasible' means 'that is possible.' But 'that is doable' connotes 'I can do that' or some such attitude.

So I'd suggest leaving the [sic] out next time.

Re:This actually _is_ funny.

[Jeremy Erwin]

I'm curious as to how much product liability insurance premiums will increase if thermite is involved. And what of the individuals who would seek to incorporate these anti-tampering devices into pipe bombs?

Re:This actually _is_ funny.

[Bishop]

It just means it is secure as practicable.

This is all security has ever meant. Whether it be computers or bank vaults.

Makes sense

[dcstimm]

Proves that there is nothing microsoft can do to secure the xbox. Oh well, thank god for xbox hackers!

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

[zulux]

The good, hard working, people at Microsoft(tm) have worked long and hard to give you a Video-Game systmem that plays the games you want.

Instead of happily purchasing the system and all twelve games, and three extra HandHurt(tm) controllers - you go and make the poor people at Microsoft(tm) cry.

I think it's time you helped a good American(tm) company like Microsoft, instead of promoting the Communist-Finnish Linux.

Please, don't take food out of a fellow American(tm) - buy your Xbox today!

(MS: Please credit MSDN account #2341 for this post)

Re:You should be ashamed of yourselves.

[forged]

HandHurt(tm) controllers

You mean, one of these ?????

Re:You should be ashamed of yourselves.

[JungleBoy]

No. I think he means these

Re:You should be ashamed of yourselves.

[Vegan Pagan]

What about the Communist-Finnish Japanese? You don't want us buying their PlayStations and GameCubes either, right?

Re:You should be ashamed of yourselves.

[micromoog]

How about one of these?

What about waiting for Palladium ?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about waiting for the first Palladium machines, and hacking those ?

Hacking the X-Box is great, I'm sure. But how much greater to wait for the companies most keen to restrict all our rights to invest a whole lot of money in Palladium - just to see it cracked and made completely useless ? It might even make them completely give up on the whole idea for a long, long time to come.

Re:What about waiting for Palladium ?

[anonymous coword]

As I stated in an earlier post, palladium can and will be cracked. Cracking the new xbox is proof that microsofts security methods are inferoir. Itwill convince people not to trust microsofts padillum, and will help to discourage it.

Preventitive Security

[jdkane]

Once the complete XBox product is in the customer's hands, all the security in the world is simply a set of preventitive measures.
Because the product is an autonomous unit, obviously anybody is free to hit it from any angle until the security is broken.

I'm sure Microsoft doesn't really expect that the XBox product will be totally secure. So it's probably not such a big deal whenever the product is cracked.

However Microsoft's sporatic changes to the XBox security may easily cause confusion to consumers who try to purchase mod chips (because different version exist), which in and of itself it a good tactic. Frustrated consumers are probably less likely to spend money on modifications after they find some mods don't work (because they are meant for a different version of the XBox).

Re:Preventitive Security

[ruiner13]

However Microsoft's sporatic changes to the XBox security may easily cause confusion to consumers who try to purchase mod chips (because different version exist), which in and of itself it a good tactic. Frustrated consumers are probably less likely to spend money on modifications after they find some mods don't work (because they are meant for a different version of the XBox).

I disagree. I tend to think that if anyone is going to be buying a mod chip to run Linux on their Xbox they'll most likely have the ability to figure our which chip they need. At the very least, I bet the mod chip people will have good instructions on how to figure out which chip you need, as they most likely want to avoid return issues. At least I would.

Re:Preventitive Security

[Phoenix]

"Frustrated consumers are probably less likely to spend money on modifications after they find some mods don't work (because they are meant for a different version of the XBox)."

Granted save that you are forgetting one point there. Different types of mod chip exist for the various versions on the Playstation and the PSOne. Different mod chips exist for the various releases of the PS2. There are even different mod chips in existance for PS2's in the same class (wired, USB with one wire to connect, USB no wire, IC card type).

So far all the choices stop are the type of person who wants a mod chip but is afraid to mod the unit. It doesn't really affect the hard core techies who love the challange of the modded and hacked toy.

Re:Preventitive Security

[sqlrob]

I'm sure Microsoft doesn't really expect that the XBox product will be totally secure. So it's probably not such a big deal whenever the product is cracked.

If it's not such a big deal, why did MS/NVIDIA write off a bunch of chips for the old version, rather then just finishing off the run with them?

Re:Preventitive Security

[Tony-A]

Methinks the confusion is in the one degree of separation between the XBox and Microsoft's attempts at enterprise-class computing.
Microsoft's sporatic changes ... may easily cause confusion to consumers.
Frustrated consumers are probably less likely to spend money on ... because they are meant for a different version of ...
The only consumers not likely to be confused are the purchasers of the mod chips.

Re:Preventitive Security

[_Knots]

Who cares? I just don't want my equipment acting against me, and the companies behind it considering me a criminal.

So while "all 10 of [us]" might not have an impact on the market (personally I think there are more than 10 people going to be pissed off about Palladium, and I know there *are* more than 10 people out there with modchips installed), we will at least have equipment that does what *we* want it to, fully under our control, and will forever ignore the MPAA, the RIAA, and the US government.

Have fun in your megacorporation-dominated libertarian-party's utopia.

--Knots;

This new xbox not really done for 'security'

[falzbro]

It seems that everyone is considering this new xbox revision to be a security upgrade, which it really doesnt seem to be. A few things on the PCB have changed, such as the USB header now being integrated on the main mobo, and few other things.

It seems to me (and others) that MS did a slight revision to cut costs. While they were at it, they did a few (very minor) changes to the BIOS to deter hackers. It's kind of gotten out of hand how people are calling this the 'new version that MS created just to not be hackable'.

--falz

Re:This new xbox not really done for 'security'

[Troed]

Oh, so you mean the totally new chain of trust, hashing and public key crypto they put in between the MCPX and the BIOS wasn't a security upgrade?

Here's a thread you need to study.

It just goes to prove...

[fishlet]

It doesn't matter if you hire the smartest people you can find... theres always someone out there smarter. Microsoft may have put it's best people behind it's security initiative, but there are always going to be people out there that are more intelligent- not to mention more motivated. Or to make this a bit simpler... I think there are more people who want to hack the Xbox then there who don't want it hacked- it's pretty obvious who's gonna win. All MS will do is going to do is make it more challenging and guess what... theres plenty of people who like challenges. The more challenging it is, the more it's "just gotta" be hacked.

Re:It just goes to prove...

[epine]

This is a hierarchy of smarterness. It's a battle of Smaug against riddling hobbits and the arrow of destiny. Be careful where you stand when DRM falls, it will make a big ugly splash.

Eventually the dragons *will* win if they learn hard lessons from every mistake. The only question is whether the dragon, once perfectly armoured, will still be able to fly, or whether it will be so encrusted with layer upon layer of protective armour it can't really hurt anyone who doesn't stumble into its path. Copy protection died in the late eighties when people discovered it was more onerous than advantageous. When copy protection actually works, it drives your legitimate customers crazy. That's my hope for DRM, that it becomes so good no one can stand it.

Re:It just goes to prove...

[epine]

I'm typing on one of those stiff IBM keyboards today. Whenever I switch to a stiff keyboard, entire word fragments go missing. I think it's a trick my hands play when running up hill. I'd send them down to the minors, but they're on a one-way contract with a no-trade clause.

"is" from the first sentence should have been "isn't"

I'm convinced my hands are living evidence for Chomsky's theory of traces. The word fragments that go missing are the ones which don't resolve until word order is set. It's disturbing that my typing errors come out as correctly spelled words I didn't intend to use. It's like waking up one day and discovering your own mental processes work much like the MS Office grammar checker which allows you to make a complete ass out of yourself if your word forms are plausible.

Re:It just goes to prove...

[fishlet]

Hmnnn, I hadn't thought of that. I guess that proves you are smarter than me. But then again, there must be someone smarter than you... and him... and him.

Microsoft should give up

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft would avoid the embarrassment by including a Linux CD with each Xbox.

Re:Microsoft should give up

[mbogosian]

Microsoft would avoid the embarrassment by including a Linux CD with each Xbox.

Yeah, but they'd call it "MS Unix" or "MS OpenSource" something. I had no idea Microsoft invented HTML until I saw the file type for .htm docs in Windows....

It doesnt matter

[Mindcry]

kinda funny how this security thing is a one way arms race... they make better and better security checks, meanwhile crackers (instead of trying to keep up and trick the checks) can simply hex edit the security right out ;)

This may be a bit more invovled, but it proves DRM will never really work, because computers were never originally designed to support restriction management, and retrofitting is too hard to implement since so many people already have really fast (unrestricted) computers/parts/technical knowledge.

Either way, if you can play music, and you have a line out, you can make copies... this is the same kinda thing.

Betcha Nvidia's Pissed

[Jason Earl]

Didn't Nvidia have to write off a bunch of hardware that became obsolete when Microsoft changed the XBox?

Re:Betcha Nvidia's Pissed

[Jason Earl]

I suppose it is somewhat comical that anyone would consider partnering with Microsoft in this day and age. Even the devil has a better reputation of living up to his end of the bargain.

Re:Betcha Nvidia's Pissed

[neocon]

I support the Palestinians. So would you if you cared to open your eyes [electronicintifada.net]

Now, what is it about linking to a site which describes Louis Farrakhan as `wise' and `balanced', which endorses murder-suicide bombings, and which rushed to repeat Arafat's lies that there was a massacre at Jenin, but claims they never said so now that Arafat admits that there was not which you think will make people agree with you?

Re:All Right!!

[dwc16]

"WHY would you want to run Linux on your X-Box? That is beyond me. You can get a fast PC for under $300. And a monitor - TVs have totally shitty resolution"

Answer (for some)
Find me a PC that can do progressive scan and/or component-out for under 300$. Now, hooked up to a nice plasma/front projector, etc etc, I can

- Run emulator's, yum!
- Watch any type of media that I please, full screen

That's just for starters. There is always a legit counter point. For me, I could pick up the new AIW 9700 with component-out, but I've already spent 300$ right there.

This is what excites joe-blows like me, no more having to drag the PC into the den and run a shitty s-video/whatever output to my HDTV.

I hope I've helped people to see one appeal for going through the long process of getting the xbox ready to run Linux, then running 100's of things thru that, including W2K.

Re:If they cant secure an Xbox.

[FooBarWidget]

It doesn't matter wether Palladium gets cracked or not, because for the vast majority of users, there will be no difference. The security may be "good enough" so that it can only cracked by using illegal hardware.
If the majority ("average users") can't break the security, then any solution is useless.

The Xbox is Microsoft's test of Palladium

[jjh37997]

Don't you get it? The Xbox is Microsoft's test case for Palladium. They try their best to secure the Xbox and wait for the hackers to bust it. They keep on doing this until they find a way to lock it down to the point were nobody can hack it. Then they role out Palladium with all the safe-guards in place and hacker tested. You XBox hackers are just a tool of Microsoft!

Re:The Xbox is Microsoft's test of Palladium

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah - Microsoft's agents are modding the parent funny.

Re:The Xbox is Microsoft's test of Palladium

[cschieke]

While there is actually some logic to that position, there is some history that shows this is a bad approach for MS to take. Way back when, in 1997 Ian Goldberg presented a talk on (amoung other things) how in Europe incremental changes to the security of GSM networks lead to a whole "generation" of well trained hackers. I don't think MS is really looking to do that for the community.

Re:The Xbox is Microsoft's test of Palladium

[The Analog Kid]

Seriously now, I don't think they will be able to secure anything when they have people like Steve Ballmer, whose best attempt at stoping Linux is to dance around the stage and scream in a high pitched voice.

Re:The Xbox is Microsoft's test of Palladium

[Above]

So no Palladium until MS has a secure XBox.

Sounds like no Palladium to me

Some Background

[warmcat]

Disclaimer: I am numbnut.

The 1.1 version of the Xbox is certainly designed to be Palladium Lite. The concept is that no code is executed unless it matches a one way hash signature. The only exception is the boot ROM (512 bytes) which lives in the nVidia-designed MCPX chip; this is used to validate the next code to execute, which validates the next code to execute and so on.

Unfortunately for MS (and perhaps nVidia), they chose a hashing algorithm which already had a known flaw. The hash, which works on QWORDS (64-bit quantities) is completely insensitive to b31 and b63 of a QWORD both being inverted.

Doubly unfortunately for MS, the VERY FIRST DWORD of the hashed region is the entry point, and contains a long relative jump. The effect of flipping b31 and b63 on this QWORD is to retarget the jump to RAM.

Triply unfortunately for MS, they have a small interpreter built into their ROM code, whose instruction set is capabel to to IO amd memory r/w before the bootrom is validated and executed. It was trivial to add some memory writes to the interpreted code stream to prep the memory targetted by the modified jump with a jump back into the flash.

The end result is perversion of the hashed region in a way invisible to the hashing algorithm, and execution flow jumping to arbitrary code in the flash.

I urge anyone interested in both the technical detail and the larger issues raised by this to read the threads on http://www.xboxhacker.net as this is a much larger issue than simply another Xbox crack.

Re:Some Background

[Ektanoor]

These reminds me of one program supposedly protected by a well known hardware key. The thing was roughly this:

IF (there is key on parallel port) AND (The key is working) {FORGET THE ... KEY AND RUN PROGRAM}

A few NOPS and some correction on jump point and the program was running without the key. For an Assembler old timer, it took nearly 15 seconds to Veni Vidi Vici (Julius Cesar phrase - I came, I saw and I won).

Considering that these hacks are slightly similar and that the hack I described is more than ten years old, then one can take an estimation on the level of security in XBox...

Re:Some Background

[ari_j]

Don't correct people if you don't know what you're talking about.

venio, venire, veni, ventum - to come
video, videre, vidi, visus - to see
vinco, vicere, vici, victus - to win (intransitive sense; the transitive gives us the powerful connotation of the word: 'to conquer'; arguably, Caesar was using the transitive form anyhow, but that's beside the point: this is a stronger verb than 'to win' is in English)

These are the 4 principal parts of each verb, as you'd find listed in a Latin dictionary. The third principal part, in each case, is the first person singular perfect indicative active - meaning, in short, that it indicates an action that the speaker undertook by himself at some time in the past. So, "veni, vidi, vici" translates directly to exactly what most people think it does: "I came; I saw; I conquered." However, most people pronounce it wrong. As Caesar would have said it, it is pronounced "we'-nee we'-dee we'-chee".

Also, you spelled Cesar wrong. That spelling refers to the inventor of Cesar salad dressing, in the early 1900's if I remember correctly, but don't quote me on that date since I can't even remember his first name. Caesar is the correct Latin spelling of Gaius Julius Caesar's family name, or 'cognomen' in Latin. And only the Germans got the pronunciation right, with Kaiser.

However, your history is correct enough to pass muster. But I have no idea where you're disagreeing with the parent post on this - and especially what rhetorical device you're trying to employ by saying "Besides, ...". Go learn English. Then Latin. And then you can teach people a Latin lesson in English.

Re:Some Background

[zerocool^]

Sounds like autocad R14 or whatever the one right before autocad2000 was.

Mine came with a little red hardware key.

'Course it came in a pack of software I had to buy, including mathematica, matlab, msoffice, and some others, for $500, so that was well below retail price.

~Will

Re:Some Background

[Ektanoor]

Yeah, some cool explanation but you fail on some things:

Don't teach me latin. I know much better than you because the word Cesar said is the same used by my people today.

Cesar is a deviation of the name Caeser. Cesar, Cesaro, Cesario and so on... Yes, it is a deviation, but it is a deviation commonly accepted by the german-latins for a few centuries...

Learn English? Was I teaching English to anyone??? I know that my English is far from the average Englishman. But don't teach latin to someone who latin is nearly his natural born language. Specially, in a verb that for centuries remains unchanged. Upon Cesar's times, only the accent of "vici" changed a little.

And it's not "we'-nee we'-dee we'-chee" - your spelling is worse than a Barbarian...

Re:Some Background

[Ektanoor]

And besides you got me so mad that I'll state this in a more familiar language for me:

Julio Cesar disse:
Vim, vi e venci

Se tu nao sabes nada de latim e melhor nao dizeres nada.

Re:Wouldn't celebrate just yet...

[waltc]

Compared to what it costs to create a given security, breaking it costs very little.

The best way to cut down on software piracy, the very best way bar none, is to cut down on the incentive for it. When software makers decide to get really competitive on pricing issues you'll see a big chunk taken out of the piracy market as a result. Especially commercial bootleggers who might see a bright future in investing in the hardware to mass-produce illegitimate copies of software they can retail at $69.95-$499 and higher. Dropping the price in that category drastically would take much of the wind out of the sails of a commercial pirate who has to spend the bucks to setup a successful CD-bootlegging operation. At $19.95 it gets even better, and the pirate has even less incentive.

That's why it's always been difficult for me to believe software piracy is anywhere near as bad as these companies make it out. If it was they'd be lowering prices to drive the bootleggers out of business. Instead of protection against pirates it seems more a case of these companies wanting to build greed-protection mechanisms instead.

Frankly, why should MS care if some hobbyist decides to mod his xBox to run Linux? Linux won't run any of the xBox software MS would receive a royalty for anyway, and in that case selling an xBox to a Linux hobbyist is one more xBox sale MS would not have made otherwise. (Granted I am not such a person so it's possible I've missed something material here.)

Please can someone explain to me ...

[Tim Ward]

... why anyone should want to run Linux on an Xbox? What will you be able to do with it that you can't do with Linux running on a proper computer?

Re:Please can someone explain to me ...

[JohnG]

Well, for one a GeForce 4 costs almost as much as an entire XBox. I have Linux on Playstation 2 just because I like the idea of developing for a console. I guess it's one of those things where if you have to ask you'll never get it.

Re:Please can someone explain to me ...

[Squarewav]

Two questions:

1:Can the Linux XBOX even use the Nvidia??

2:With the PS2 Linux can you compile stand alone PS2 games and apps that don't require loading linux first??

Re:Please can someone explain to me ...

[JohnG]

I don't know about using the nvidia on linux xbox, but you can't compile standalone ps2 games on ps2-linux. I haven't compiled anything yet as I haven't got a sync on green monitor and the view on a TV screen is pretty lousy.

Re:Please can someone explain to me ...

[RedX]

... why anyone should want to run Linux on an Xbox?

The answer to your question is just a few posts above:

Please show me the $199 PC that has a DVD drive, onboard NIC, decent video and sound that I can run into my TV and, while on, is pretty much noiseless that also plays Xbox games. Provide links, if possible, and I'll go buy one instead of the Xbox I was planning on buying (refurb on sale for $159.99 at Electronics Boutique!) today. If you could, please hurry as the sale ends this weekend.

I'm not being entirely sarcastic (if there really is a place that sells comparable $200 PCs, I would buy one), but I am tired of this whole "you can get PCs for the price of an Xbox" argument. My motherboard cost almost that much by itself. My video card cost more than that. Just because I can get a crappy Microtel or whatever at Wal-Mart for $200 bucks doesn't mean it's just as good

Re:Please can someone explain to me ...

[Alsee]

What will you be able to do with it that you can't do with Linux running on a proper computer?

For starters you can put some cash back in your pocket. A PC (proper computer) with the same components costs more.

If you bought an XBOX to play the games then it saves you the cost of buying a seperate box to run Linux.

It also enables you to post a story to slashdot :)

-

Re:If they cant secure an Xbox.

[vinyl1]

Actually, the paddalium is what Bill Gates will shortly be applying to the bottoms of these naughty hackers.

Re:Dangerous?

[Cyno01]

lethal voltages in the system will be microsofts next security measure

Question for you.

[FreeLinux]

This post is not meant as a flame or insult, I'm genuinely curious.

There are a few possible reasons for this hack:
It's cool.
Because it's there.
Because you want to piss off M$.
You didn't have anything better to do.

But, using the XBox as a cheap Linux PC isn't one of them as PCs can be found for $199. So, my question is; what is your motivation to spend so much time hacking the XBox?

Re:Question for you.

[Troed]

Please come to Sweden and show me where I can get a cheap PC with the characteristics of the Xbox in a store, for the same price.

Oh, you thought the US was the whole world?

Re:Question for you.

[KFury]

Because a $199 Linux PC doesn't have a kickass video card, DVD drive, or NTSC out.

Re:Question for you.

[handsomepete]

Please show me the $199 PC that has a DVD drive, onboard NIC, decent video and sound that I can run into my TV and, while on, is pretty much noiseless that also plays Xbox games. Provide links, if possible, and I'll go buy one instead of the Xbox I was planning on buying (refurb on sale for $159.99 at Electronics Boutique!) today. If you could, please hurry as the sale ends this weekend.

I'm not being entirely sarcastic (if there really is a place that sells comparable $200 PCs, I would buy one), but I am tired of this whole "you can get PCs for the price of an Xbox" argument. My motherboard cost almost that much by itself. My video card cost more than that. Just because I can get a crappy Microtel or whatever at Wal-Mart for $200 bucks doesn't mean it's just as good.

Anyways, all of this hacking stuff is over my head, but I would assume that the challenge is kind of interesting and being part of the group that is a watchdog to the predecessor to Palladium must be at least part of the intrigue. But what do I know. *shrug*

Re:Question for you.

[silentbozo]

The local EB is blowing 'em out at $150 a box (though you probably have to buy some games as part of the bundle for you to offer that price.) Another EB bundle I saw was $195, including DVD playback...

Reverse engineering NOT a given

[m11533]

I would recommend you read up on the legal issue of reverse engineering because it is under attack and it is not at all obvious that it will survive. I believe the latest issue of ACM Communications has an excellent article on the topic. Recent US Government laws are very disconcerting.

Re:All Right!!

[Student_Tech]

Most every modern PC already does component out, in the form of an RGB signal. For reference (some of it from what people were doing to run VGA monitors off of the XBox...)
640x480 = 480p
1280x720 = 720p
1920x1080 = 1080i
(I borrowed the 720p and 1080i from some site, so I'm not sure if they will work)

(and I can't remember any others, but there are)
On http://www.epanorama.net/ if you look you can find something like:
(From http://www.epanorama.net/links/videocircuits.html)

Do-it-Yourself VGA ro PPrPb Cable - This circuit is designed to convert 60Hz VGA (480p) from a computer's VGA port and drive progressive-component outputs to an HDTV (or similar display device).

You can also find links for going component to RGB if you want to run an Xbox (or PS2 or DVD player).

FWIW this is a starting reference, don't try something unless you are willing to take a chance that it might screw something up really bad.

Re:Numbnut??

[Corporate Drone]

It's "numbnuts", numbnuts. (Unless you really only have got one ...)

unless, of course, he's half of a two-person team of hackers...

That's not reverse engineering

[qengho]

Mr. Gates himself related the story of reverse engineering MSDOS by dumpster diving for source code

That's theft of trade secrets, if true. "Reverse engineering" is treating the object in question (program or device) as a black box with inputs and outputs and reproducing its behavior exactly, without access to source documents.

Re:That's not reverse engineering

[Detritus]

It's no longer a trade secret if you leave source code listings in publicly accessible trash containers.

BFD, no mod chips.

[supabeast!]

This would be really cool if Microsoft had not shut Lik Sang down, because without a mod chip this doesn't really do me much good.

Mod Chips DO give access to protected content.

[Kelmenson]

Pretty much every mod chip out has always made the systems skip their "authentic CD/DVD" check, so a backup (or illegal copy...) of a game will work. Now, with XBox Linux, there are definitely legitimate and legal uses for a modded XBox, which in a reasonable legal system would mean that DMCA wouldn't have an effect here. But we all know that DMCA and reasonable don't belong in a sentence together...

Re:food for thought

[tuffy]

You know, it's vocal, endorsed and promoted projects like this that give the OSS and free software community a bad name. YOU might view it as tinkering or whatever but the general populace views it as "pissing in the pool" so to speak.

Judging from the X-Box's market share (or lack thereof), the general populace cares about as much about the X-Box as they do about Linux (which isn't a whole lot).

And even though the number of people using X-Boxes as cheap PCs is small, Microsoft certainly appreciates not having those consoles as unsold inventory (which would cost them even more).

What contract did I sign?

[Inoshiro]

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.

Some damn idea

[Ektanoor]

I know this is a little bit unscientific, and rather illusory but...

Xbox is small, nitty and costs only $200. It possesses a 3D chip, a not so bad 733MHz processor, ethernet connection and an hard drive. Frankly it is not so bad for a cheap cluster... Sincerly, I have seen a few clusters for which the cluster units were a little worse than XBox...

Maybe the chance for M$ to reach Top 500? Imagine, an horde of penguins helping up Redmond to reach the heights of computer industry...

Re:Some damn idea

[MyHair]

Um, did he just say "imagine a beowulf cluster of these" (albeit with different wording) and get modded to +4 interesting?

Re:food for thought

[nagora]

You know, it's vocal, endorsed and promoted projects like this that give the OSS and free software community a bad name.

If you mean by "bad name" that they stand for the right of people that BUY a product to use it without fear of being hounded by an lawbreaking organisation such as Microsoft, or that they aim to defend the written law of fair use from being destroyed by bribes and corruption at the highest levels of the judicial system then I'm all for being called "Mudd".

Perhaps the OSS and free software community should consider a different approach to establishing their self-image and promoting their cause.

Perhaps you should consider your position as a marketing droid's wet dream. Perhaps you should consider your role as an instrument of corporate interferance in everyday life. Perhaps you should consider smelling the coffee.

It would appear that you have lost sight of what (not just) Microsoft are trying do here: they are trying to say "You paid us fair and square for our machine but we still own it and, in fact, we now own a little bit of you because we can tell you what (not) to do with our little box of tricks."

As a great man once said "Fuck that".

TWW

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You might as well ask

[Inoshiro]

Why the bear went over the mountain.

The answer is to see what he could see.

If you do not understand the zen of running Linux an whatever you want to after a little effort, then do not comment.

Re:food for thought

[Rui del-Negro]

On the contrary. This is simply enabling the Xbox to do something that the PS2 already does. If anything, it should increase Xbox sales.

RMN
~~~

Re:We need to bring back Guilds..

[Windcatcher]

The fact that we're being called "consumers" instead of "customers" sadly illustrates the cynical attitude of many corporate types. "Shut up and buy our stuff, you nose-picking, beer-guzzling sheep!"

To paraphrase someone else, most people, according to them, "are a bunch of pathetic hamsters who only know to press the pellet bar and chitter excitedly to one another about the size of the pellet they received."

I'm a customer, Mr. Gates, and as far as I'm concerned, entropy will claim the universe before I pay one red cent for another of your products.

News?

[fire-eyes]

My feelings for MS are widely know, but for once I'm not trying to troll.

Given the facts, how is this news?

In my eyes, it isn't.

What WOULD be news would be "secure xbox cracked after exhaustive 6 month effort by 3 teams of 1200 people".

Agreed?

Re:Anyone care to tell me what the big deal is?

[Nintendork]

This new revision had the security key changed. Microsoft had to scrap a lot of the older parts to make this change. The change had only been implemented in the plant that supplies Australia and it's already cracked. That's why it's news.

It costs them money to keep changing the locks

[NigelJohnstone]

"They keep on doing this until they find a way to lock it down to the point were nobody can hack it. "

It costs them big money (or rather NVIDIA in this case - Microsoft is trying to stick them with the bill) to change the locks. break it often enough and MS look like idiots.

Even if they finally solve this, nobody will buy copyprotection from idiots.

What about Mathematica?

[ari_j]

Anyone know of a crack for Mathematica? Since you basically have to have a PhD in Math to get even a secretarial position at Wolfram, let alone a programming job, they're the real baseline for 'hiring the smartest people you can find'.

Thank you.

[FreeLinux]

As I said, I was not trying to flame or insult you, or anyone else. Despite my disclaimer, I still got a few flames (I love Slashdotters) :^)

But, thanks for your answer, I appreciate your time. I really wanted to know what your personal motivation was, and now I know. I do agree with your views regarding MS and their licensing. As for what I am doing about it, I'm NOT purchasing their products. They can take Licensing 6.0 and stuff it!

Can a Modded X-Box...

[tkrotchko]

Can it still play X-Box games? It might be fun to try, but the reason I bought the X-Box was for games. of course, I only own one game. Still waiting for that killer app...

Illicit software

[Vegan Pagan]

How long until Tengen makes an unlicensed version of Tetris for Xbox that's better than the official version?

ACM Communications

[BlueboyX]

It is in the latest issue. It says 'reverse engineering under siege,' It doesn't attempt to predict who will win the legal matters, but explains what the threat is and how it will cause extreme harm to the tech industry if reverse engineering is taken away. Most slashdotters probably know most of that, but it is an interesting read.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

And the score so far...

[di0s]

Security through obscurity:-2
Determined hackers:+2

Exactly like the Sat pirates

[jmorris42]

This will work out exactly like the sat piracy in the BUD (Big Ugly Dish) era. It's now general knowledge that General Instruments was making all of the 'pirate' chips for the Video Cipher hacks, then breaking them again a few months later. The chaos that ensued with having to replace your hacked chips every few months eventually caused all but the most diehard to give up. And I wouldn't be all that suprised to learn DirecTV tried to do the same thing except it got out of hand. No fear though, although the bootleggers got a few years of free signal with only a few forced upgrades, they will eventually close that back down.

Same thing here. M$ doesn't care if numbnut gets Linux going on his X-Box. The hardcore will always suceed at a unrealistic cost in time and money. So long as they discourage joe average end user they win.

Of course the difference here is Sat TV needs a hack that can decode the signals coming down NOW. An X-Box hack only needs to be able to work once. Changes the odds towards the hacks, but does it do enough? How many want to look up their box in ranges of manufacturing dates & serial numbers to see IF their machine is hackable and which mod they need to get. Especially considering those lists will become notorious for inaccuracy.

Corrigendum

[ari_j]

Sorry, I made a mistake in my phonetic spelling. The 'ch' in the last word should have been a 'k'. They'd be pronounced the same in Latin, but not in English.

Xbox Security - The Movie

[Cheese Cracker]

Subtitle: Cracked in 60 seconds.

Tamper-proof hardware

[mcrbids]

.. is like an unbreakable rope. It doesn't exist.

Get used to it. (MS is hopefully now learning something most of us learned long ago...)

It's not just MS

[mark-t]

When it comes to having physical access to the device, no form of security short of causing *completely* irrevocable consequences can ever be adequate. Most such completely irrevocable consequences would have to violate one or more fundamental human rights, so it's not particularly likely to happen in this society.

Even that wouldn't stop the security mechanisms from being cracked in theory, but with harsh enough consequences, it's unlikely you'd find a person insane enough to keep trying.

doability

[Bishop]

At the time I could not find the word in a dictionary. I agree it seems valid. However as you may have guessed English is not my strong point. The [sic] was on me. As in: "This word might not exists, but I am going to use it anyway. My english teacher be damned!"

Freedom to innovate - let's see a laundry list

[SgtChaireBourne]

That's right, MS's original flagship products weren't written by MS. They started as they meant to continue.

And MSIE was innovated from NCSA Mosaic via Spyglass. FTP/Telnet/TCPIP were innovated from UC Berkeley, disk compression was innovated from Stacc, and so on. Even Frontpage, Powerpoint, and others were innovated.

Let's see a laundry list of the original companies. A complete list of products or components and the original company or institutions from which Microsoft later innovated would be very interesting. Oh, and the purchase prices would be interesting as well.

'Scuse me while I go innovate some office supplies.

You left one thing out

[Andy Dodd]

Form factor

The Xbox is in a form factor that's decent for an entertainment center. It's big as far as consoles go, but it's far smaller/more portable than your average PC.

There are PCs with such form factors, you say?

You'll be spending a lot more than $300 for a PC with the appropriate form factor. (The good Shuttle units are around $300 alone and that's without CPU, HDD, and DVD drive)

Re:We need to bring back Guilds..

[cascadefx]

blockquoteth:

The fact that we're being called "consumers" instead of "customers" sadly illustrates the cynical attitude of many corporate types. "Shut up and buy our stuff, you nose-picking, beer-guzzling sheep!"

Seems the perfect time to bring up a couple of interesting resources that point exactly along these lines.

There are a fascinating group of documentaries and a book about the rise of consumerism in America (/the world) and how it is adversely affecting us. I highly recommend the book Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic and the two documentaries on which it is based; Affluenza: The Disease of Materialism and Escape from Affluenza.

An interesting and disturbing part of the first film shows a marketing conference from Disney (actual footage) called "Kid Power" in which the head "marketeer" of Disney talks about how Disney owns America's children and how anti-social behavior in pursuit of a product in young consumers is a good thing. If junior wants a Disney product and is willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get it, then you know you have them. Creepy stuff.

I would also recommend the book Culture Jam How to Reverse America's Suicidal Consumer Binge-And Why We Must from the editor of Adbusters Magazine.