Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
According to the article you need to configure your server to return trialAccountDaysLeft = -1 How long before Apple changes that variable name, or obfuscates it somehow?
Writers imply. Readers infer.
I like this idea. So we can emulate .Mac servers, BNETD servers, advertising servers, Cydoor servers, and even :CueCat servers. Setting up independent servers has the obvious advantage of being independent from an ultimate authority, decentralizing the service and making it more useful to the Internet community. So I ask Slashdot, what commericial or otherwise propertiary server will be reverse-engineered and cloned next? My vote is in for an Oscar/TOC server so one could use AOL-IM to communicate with one's LAN.
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
"-2, didn't read article". :)
...getting a fixed IP costs way more than a .mac account.
Well, I can sell you 192.168.0.1 really cheap, just mail me you kredit card number.
Livetime access granted.
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
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Jeremy Beker has more informations about using iSync to syncronize calenders, addresses, etc. without using .Mac
Somewhere in the heavens... they are waiting.
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.
God does not play dice - Einstein
Not only does God play dice, he sometimes throws them where they
"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."
Is it just me or is anyone else trying to figure out what the duct tape is for?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Really. I wanted to see an innovative use of duct tape on a Mac.
Lousy Slashdot editors. Convincing me to read a story when there's actually no duct tape involved.
A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire
Provided by Mr HOSTBOT
RudeDude
Perl/Linux/PHP hacker
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.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
A self signed certificate will do, since Backup does not check the certificate.
That's really bad. It means that anyone can launch a man-in-the-middle attack against someone using .Mac for backup purposes. I'm sure people are using .Mac to backup their Quicken financial data and other things they'd consider sensitive.
I hope Apple fixes that...I'd be pretty pissed if I were a .mac user.
The fact is that a lot of people want .Mac functionality but with a little bit more control on their part. I think that Apple may initially fight this but eventually will be forced to allow user controlled .Mac servers. Hell, perhaps they'll see it as an opportunity and sell a XServe.Mac.
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.
got standards? --- http://www.w3.org/
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
There are lots of neat things that .mac does (I paid my $50), but it'd be great if I could do them locally. Backup is a HUGE one - 100Base-T is a lot better than DSL! But being able to use the pretty slick webmail for my own mail domain would be very useful as well, instead of having to forward to my mac.com address. Local iCal would be very nice as well.
.mac services to my local users. Sure, there are variety of ways to hack it together, but if it all "just worked" that'd be better yet.
I can certainly understand why Apple doesn't want to make these available everywhere for free, but it'd be great if MacOS X Server 10.3 or whatever made it possible to provide some
This would certainly give me a reason to pay $1K to upgrade from the 10.1.5 server I'm running right now.
And on an unrelated note, 10.3 REALLY should include a graphical DNS admin. It's really jarring to have all these great, simple controls for the whole server experience, except DNS. Webmin works, but still, that's hardly the MacOS X vision!
My video compression blog
Well, smoking crack is illegal and you're obviously doing a lot of that.
The article explains how to customize Apple's backup software, included in OSX for which you paid over $100, to backup to a different server.
That's about as unethical as using a Mister Microphone rather than listening to commercial radio.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
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!!!
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!