Fake Your Own .Mac Server

c13v3rm0nk3y writes "A clever fellow named Otto Moerbeek has publish a short article on getting an OpenBSD box to emulate a .Mac server. Using Apache/DAV/SSL and a roll a duct-tape, he describes how you can get most .Mac functionality without paying Apple for it." This is useful because then you can use apple's backup tools to backup to a local server, and not have to backup over your piddly internet connection.

Comments

Open servises.

[Space Coyote]

This kind ofstuff is great. Appletakes advantage of open protocols like webDAV to implement their services, and they'll still make lots of money off of .Mac. But for those who want to put in the time and have a spare machine lying around they can now get a lot of the advantages of .Mac, which might entice them to buy a new mac where they wouldn't have if it meant forking over for .Mac.

I'm sur eApple saw this coming, and if they really wanted to prevent it they would have just added an authentication mechanism or something to block unauthorized servers.

Re:Why don't they just rename it to..

[Kalak]

Stop Whining. Just change your preferences and you'll never have to read about Macs again.

I'm all for the BSDs

[(Not)Hellbourne]

....but I think it should be noted that this doesn't depend on any BSD specific stuff, and can (pretty much, gotta get that https server up) just as easily be done under the /. championed linux.

Re:Irresponsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you talking about?
This is in no way different than setting up your own Apache instead of paying some ISP to host your stuff.

geez.

We need a new mod option...

[Anonymous Coward]

"-2, didn't read article". :)

Re:Magic Number

[user no. 590291]

Or, in the next build of OSX pushed out through software update, they'll make it check for an Apple SSL certificate. Now that can be patched, but they'd use the DMCA to quash it.

Correct me if I am wrong but

[einhverfr]

Isn't interoperability considered fair use in copyright law (Patent milage may vary). IANAL, however.

I would assume that the author of the parent post is opposed to SAMBA and the SAMBA Howto information ;)

(I confess, I don't use Samba anymore-- without Windows systems it sort of loses its appeal ;))

Re:Correct me if I am wrong but

[Angry White Guy]

Hey, cloudscout! Here's a dead horse, now beat it.
The check is in the server to prevent people from using theirserver without paying.
Do you know how many people are going to do this instead of using .Mac? None. The guys that are going to do this are the ones which have absolutely no intention of paying anyone to backup their data. Macs are not generally targetted at geeks, but mostly business users. The geeks that have macs are going to back up data in either the easiest or the hardest, most obscure way they can find. This case just happens to be the latter which turned into the former.

Suck it up, nobody's buing this "You're stealing" shit. Especially on the third post about it.

Re:Irresponsible?

[Emugamer]

I think there is a difference here. This isn't stealing software, Someone already paid for Mac OSX and the apple hardware, this is replicating a service locally. You aren't getting a service for free ala directv card hacking, you are using your own server to provide the service instead of the companies, much like replacing windows update with your own -less broken version ( does anyone not block those ip/dns addresses?)

Re:Getting an OpenBSD box to emulate a .Mac serv

[Lord of the Files]

This isn't authenticating you to apple's backup server which unlimited trial days, it's authenticating you to your own backup server with unlimited trial days. Hence the rest of the article explaining about setting up DAV and whatnot to do the actual backups. Nothing illegal about that.

This has been up and advertised for months

[tres]

There's nothing illegal about changing your /etc/hosts file. There's nothing illegal about setting up a WebDAV server for yourself.

This isn't illegal. But try advertising a public iDisk server, or try redistributing Apple's Backup utility & you'll probably be needing a lawyer.

Apple may be quick about protecting a "look and feel," but to keep Microsoft from "innovating" them any more, I think they have every right. This has been around for months, been advertised on MacSlash & is still running strong.

Re:Duct tape?

[Xtraneous]

The duct tape is for the mouths of Apple's lawyers.

Re:Irresponsible?

[medeii]

This is patently false.

Apple has written software to be used with their .Mac service. The cost of the software is included in the price of the service.

No, because the software in question is not delivered upon payment for its associated service. It is delivered upon payment for a different product -- it's a bundle, obviously.

When you use the software without paying for the service you are, in effect, pirating the software.

Actually, anyone who does this is simply using the software they own (it came with OS X, and they bought that, right?) in a manner inconsistent with its design. That's not illegal! Requisite analogy: A car manufacturer sells cupholders emblazoned with the Coca-Cola logo. Is it then [sarcasm]piracy[/sarcasm] to use said cupholders to hold a Dr. Pepper, or worse yet, your own no-name water bottle?

You may justify this in your own mind by claiming that the price of the hardware and the OS should entitle you to the use of the .Mac backup software but that's not how it was intended.

I don't give a flying fsck about intentions. Apple created a product and bundled it with their operating system; I bought the operating system, and thus I've purchased that product legitimately. It is not their business how I use that product; it's mine, and I don't remember reading a EULA that forbade me to use it with another service. (Even if it did, this comes pretty close to Connectix/Sony for obvious reasons.) As such, I am more than welcome to use my purchase any way I want, even if it means in a way that it's not intended to be used.

The backup software is not a part of the OS. It is not included with the computer. It is a download available to .Mac users. It has built-in safegaurds to prevent use by people who do not pay for a .Mac subscription. By circumventing these mechanisms you are pirating the software.

Yes, a .Mac subscription from Apple. But the poster is not cheating Apple; he's not accessing their servers and using their services. And because he's not using THEIR servers, there's no reason that he should pay them anything.

ok, what about the rest?

[weave]

It's hardly emulating a .mac server. What about the other stuff? How can I upload my iCal to it and have it magically generate the calendar html files? How can I publish my iPhoto stuff and have it build all the web pages that puts it all together and lets me manage the web account?

ok, it's faking one bit of it so you can make backup work.

I'm one of those that thinks .mac is a decent value and paid my money for it. I also find it ironic that Microsoft has yet to find any .Net services that people want to buy. MSN 8? I still haven't figured out what you get with MSN 8 that is so special. Spam filtering? You could do much better and get better filtering results by spending $30/year on a spamcop.net e-mail account.

I originally thought that .mac was a cheesy ripoff of the .net name, but now I am loving the irony of Apple ripping off a Microsoft idea instead of the other way around.

Re:I wonder..

[usr122122121]

I read through this thread and was shocked by the number of people who claim to know Apple's exact intentions...

Probably none of us know, but I can say for sure that Apple's programmers are smart enough that they wouldn't have used WebDAV if they wanted all the .Mac stuff to proprietary. It is as simple as that.

We will all see Apple's actions soon enough.

Re:Neat but...

[evilviper]

Is there a way to get it to work on mixed Windows/Mac networks?

I always hate hearing this... IT'S A FRIGGIN' UNIX BOX!!! You can set it up to do anything a Unix box can do.

You can have it e-mail an obscene message to Apple or Microsoft when the backup finishes. You can have it DoS slashdot.com every five minutes. You can have it insert a different virus into each file after the backup has finished... You can do anything with it that you can do with Unix.

In conclusion: IT'S A FRIGGIN' UNIX BOX!!!

Re:Irresponsible?

[medeii]

And here's where you're wrong:

You assumed that my argument referred solely to the backup program, and that it is only accessed by downloading software. I can tell you, right now, that when I booted my eMac for the first time one of the Applications sitting on my system was Backup, and it was designed to work with .Mac. Furthermore, even if the Backup program was only accessed via downloading, there are still plenty of other parts of .Mac that do not require a download; to make things even better, go read the license yourself and eat your post. The user is not obligated to fulfill Apple's intentions by downloading the software, and since nothing in the license explicitly prohibits using an alternate server, people are well within their rights to bypass Apple entirely.

Please, tell me how that's illegal.

What about iSync ...

[Tjp($)pjT]

I just want an iSync replacement server instead of .Mac. I find it odd that if I buy a third party handheld, I can sync to it just fine, but I need a .Mac account to sync to my Apple hardware (Powerbook). Doesn't this just discourage Powerbook and iBook sales in favor of PDAs for those people who are borderline (well, that would mostly be iBook sales, but still). Seems an odd approach to marketing to lose some $1000 sales to make a few $100 sales. As my dad was fond of saying, "If it doesn't help make a sale, don't do it!" I'll be waiting for the bean-counters to settle it out with the actuaries.

tsk tsk, rob... old news.

[BiOFH]

this is ancient news (and... didn't you gys already cover the o'reilly version ????).