Slashdot Mirror
Linux Xbox Project Seeks Microsoft Signature
silvaran writes "We've had several Microsoft posts, and here's another, from CNet News. The team behind the XBox port of Linux is seeking a digital signature from Microsoft to approve the XBox Linux project. This would allow it to run on an unmodified XBox. According to the article, "Microsoft will be eligible to apply for an award under this scheme if they approve Xbox Linux as a normal Xbox program."
But an interesting, creative idea. The only way I could see MS playing with this is if they thought it would get the courts off their back a bit ("Hey, we approved Linux on our hardware platform!").
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Microsoft spends more than that every day on sweat pads for Ballmer. I'm not holding my breath.
Jesus agrees to replace Charlton Heston as president of the NRA...
seriously, given Microsoft's stance toward the GPL and Linux (one's a cancer, one's a threat), in what universe would they possibly agree to digitally sign an alternative OS for their precious XBox?
I am the very model of a modern major general!
Why *wouldn't* Microsoft want this? Think about it - if they allow linux to run on the Xbox, then the arguments about "I have a modchip because I want to run linux" is useless. It gives them more fire power in court when it comes to nailing people with mochips. Yes, it's a competing OS and they don't like it - but Microsoft is about one thing, MONEY. If they can gain one more weapon in the battle against modchips, this would be a huge one to have.
This is another team trying to get a licence to allow linux to run (in the same way a game is signed - only an OS), NOT microsoft trying to get their way into linux. I personally bet the app is turned down.
I very much doubt Microsoft would sign any Linux unless it was planning on getting control of it. If all they can gain is an award they have no real reason to look like they approve of Linux. They may even try to compete by making an Xbox version of Windows.
John Hancock
Yeah because MS wanted to prevent the XBox being hacked to allow anyone to develope software without paying for the SDK kit simply because they weren't being paid some award money for letting it happen.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
since signing Linux means that ANY other application can be run on top of Linux (Think Wine, VMWare and so on..), which nullifies ALL of the controls Microsoft has put in place to make the console 'theirs'.
It is like asking Microsoft to ship X-Boxes with a modchip mounted on it already. Hell will reach absolute zero, and Microsoft will STILL not touch this idea with a ten-mile pole.
...that the reply letter from Microsoft is going to be ... well, let's just say you could put it in a styrofoam cooler and use it on your fishing trip.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
My understanding was that the signature applied to a particular binary. Thus, a signature would be good only for whatever kernel revision the XBox linux guys submitted for approval. This would rather miss the point of Linux, wouldn't it? All bugs are shallow, but none of them can be fixed without asking Microsoft for approval?
I read this open letter a couple days ago, and not only is it unlikely (understatement?) that Microsoft would take them seriously, the authors don't even really appear to care whether or not Microsoft agrees with them. The whole letter is interspersed with a number of jabs at Microsoft, which is not something that I would really consider wise if you want Microsoft to take you seriously. As well, they obviously don't understand the console video game market ("... Microsoft's deliberate design choices in terms of restricting the software that may run on an unmodified xbox ...", "Xbox Linux gives choices back to the user which Microsoft denies them ...", "In terms of our being an 'established game publisher' [19], members of our team have written games in the past, and our Xbox Linux distribution runs such fine games as 'Tux vs Clippy' [14], 'Tux Racer' [15], and 'Frozen Bubble' [16]," and so on). In a nutshell, they don't seem to understand that Microsoft has every right to restrict what software runs on their console (see Nintendo, Sony, Sega, et al). There's no "denial of choice" -- if you want a computer, don't buy an XBox. And writing a few amateur games does not give one the title of "established game publisher". Maybe "established game developer", in which case they could try getting into Microsoft's incubator program for developers with a good idea but no publisher, but that's not going to happen for the XBox Linux project.
Microsoft is responsible for making sure that only quality software (err ... let's ignore stuff like Kabuki Warriors, eh? All consoles have to have their share of stinkers ...) is released for their console. Otherwise, we'd be right back in 1984 and the last video game crash. A major contributing factor was Atari's lack of certification for games, and the subsequent glut of pure crap. Do we want to go back to that? I know I don't.
Finally, there are definitely piracy issues here. Right now, while it's not exactly difficult to modify an XBox, it's at least a small barrier of entry to the pirate underground. As well, it makes for a fantastic way to keep cheaters off of XBox Live. How simple would it be to write a small loader for copied games or cheats when you start from an open platform like Linux? If this gets certified (fat chance), the mod chip barrier to entry is no longer there, making it trivial to pirate games or cheat online. You can say what you will about piracy (piracy sucks, imho), but I think everybody will agree that online cheaters are teh suck.
im curious as to, could microsoft legitimately refuse to sell the SDK to someone programming linux or could they allow the SDK (looks as if its not needed since linux runs) and then deny a license? are they allowed to do that?
What if a current developer stepped in and aided with the project and distributed it for a low price (I would prolly pay for it as long as I could download updates or something). if this company also had games, would microsoft refuse them the license and then risk losing their titles or would microsoft grant them a lisense? They could always release the source or a free downloadable version but it wouldnt just plug in and work, givin the xbox's problems with burnt media without a mod-chip.
Bottles.
in which scenario do they lose more money on a stock of existing consoles:
a) do not sell console
b) sell console
they've got a sunk cost and a huge inventory. considering the very small number of people willing to shell out dough to run linux on microsoft hardware, it will only defray their costs. you'd have to generate sales in the hundreds of thousands to even begin registering on their radar.
there was an article linked here recently where someone set up a cluster of xboxes and a cluster of cheap pc's and concluded that cheap walmart pc's were faster and more cost effective than the xboxes. so who's going to buy all these machines to run just linux? poorly?
no, if you buy an xbox, you're almost 100% going to play games, too.
Is there any particular reason why it's a good idea to put Linux on an XBox? Aside from the kewl factor, I'd rather just go get a $300 PC and put Linux on that. Far more suitable to tinkering.
Read my keyboard review.
After his talk and demo, he was asked whether Linux would run on the Xbox (I think it was the first question asked). His answer (I'm paraphrasing) was interesting:
His talk hadn't mentioned code signing, so no-one asked him whether they'd sign a linux image. I figure he's right on that last point - it's easy to imagine a signed "aint-it-cool" general purpose linux image being quickly coopted into a wrapper that allowed copied games to be played.
So perhaps the question should be "why would Microsoft _want_ to sign an Xbox linux image?". I doubt "so they can sell more Xboxes" is going to be persuasive enough.
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
There is no way MS grants this team a cert. MS wants to make money, and here's the facts:
1) They take a loss on the console in order to make profit on the games console owners would buy.
- they don't want you to buy an xBox for the purpose of running linux and doing whatever (email, server, etc) - they want you to buy xbox games!
2) Allowing another OS on the xbox creates piracy.
- MS needs to sell games to make money. If these guys get their cert. it would be used to play games. Be it TuxRacer or a pirated copy of an actual xBox game. It would happen. The cert could be used to boot, and then load a pirated copy of a game on an unmodified xBox. Bad for business.
3) This is not in the grand scheme of things. Consider the xBox the first stage in a modular sort of computer (this being the gaming module) with DRM and total MS control.
- there's no benefit to award this cert. the hardcore linux nerds of the world aren't going to stop and say "hey, mayeb MS ain't so bad. I'm going to go to the store and buy Windows, Office, etc"
With no benefits at all for MS I see no reason in the world why they would award a cert. here. The reward money is not a benefit, it is a joke to a company the size of MS.
..mork
If you're going to submit a story about a letter written to MS, please, LINK TO THE LETTER
/. editors to fault with this, as CNet didn't link to the letter either.
Can't hold the
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
If MS rejects this, modchippers in court can say, "see, this is the only way we can run our alternative OS. Even when we asked nicely, they turned us down. Modchipping is the only way we can get what we want." Either way, it seems smart to at least ask.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
If MS does sign it...then they've legitimized their largest threat - bad for microsoft
If MS doesn't sign it....clear case of MS using its monopoly in one market to attempt to dominate another = more antitrust lawsuits
Its a no-win situation for MS.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
What's to stop Microsoft charging a large amount of money to sign it, just to make it unfeasible? that way, they aren't actually saying "no"...
Say what? The XBox is a console, not a PC. And even if it was a PC, MS is not a monopoly player in the PC hardware business.
If they agree, Xbox will lose more money than it already is losing, because people will be able to buy the handle and get their razors elsewhere.
How many Linux users out there have a boner for putting Linux on an XBox? Outside of the "I'll do it because it's not supposed to be possible" crowd? A few hundred? A thousand? How much money does MS lose per XBox? $50.00, $100.00? How much money does MS have in liquid assets (cash on hand)? An estimated $40,000,000,000.00 (US). How many millions of Xboxes would have to be turned into crappy PCs running Linux before MS even felt the damage?
You have better luck draining the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon.
If you want to mod your XBox because it's a challange, or you like turning everything around you into a Linux box, fine. Do it. Have a blast. If you are modding your XBox to stick it to the Man please invest in something resembling a clue.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Nope. You still have a few other hurdles to jump, like being an "established game publisher" (the letter attempts to address this, but fails). And even then, Microsoft is not in any way obligated to let you publish for their platform. Assuming you could somehow fool Microsoft into agreeing not only that Linux is a video game (hard sell) but also that you're an established game publisher (even more difficult, unless you really are) and get them to agree to sign your code so you can publish, I don't think your royalty numbers will work out. Assuming $10 per copy (that's probably very high), and that the letter is correct in saying that Mandrake Linux for the XBox has been downloaded over 83,000 times, and that each one of those people downloads the newly signed version, that's $830,000 in royalty fees (who cares that you gave it away for free -- your royalty contract was per copy, and not per sold copy), or more than 8 times that $100,000 prize. How exactly do you plan on affording that?
If Microsoft were to sign the Xbox linux project's code could they distribute that signature under a for-profit license or would the GPL protect it to ensure that it could be distributed? It isn't source code. Could this be a way for Microsoft to steal GPL code for its profit? Just a thought.
Just ask - what makes MS money on XBox? Selling more XBoxes? No. Selling GAMES! Will Linux-on-XBox sell more XBox games? No.
The letter seems more like a platform to reiterate common gripes Linux users have with the MS empire. I can't see how anyone who was part of constructing that letter thought it would do any good in the way it was written. It's as if it was written by a French diplomat.
The letter alleges that an email alias at xbox.com might not be staffed due to the "dumping" of xbox's and the poor fiscal performance of the xbox "division".
Also, the letter places restrictions on MS if MS sees fit to given them a key. The mountain in this case, is told which path it should crawl on to get to Mohammad.
It's somewhat comical, and sad at the same time. Either way, useless. If MS _DID_ give them a key, it would be for a specific build/version/signature only. And that just won't make these guys happy.
I recommend the authors of this letter read up a little on basic diplomacy. My recommendations:
"Save face" concept is a way to solve conflicts and avoid embarrassing or discomforting the parties involved.
How to Win Friends and Influence People
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
X-Box Linux: Can we run linux on the x-box?
Slashdot Community:You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes...blah,blah,blah
Microsoft::Um, okay
Here's why it's not going to happen: Microsoft is adamant that the XBox is NOT a PC. All of their PR so far has tried to distance the XBox as far away as possible from PCs. It runs Windows, but you never see the traditional Windows look or any reference to Windows or DirectX anywhere. Microsoft keeps their logo small and unobtrusive so people don't associate the XBox primarily with Microsoft and Windows. They even changed the shape of the USB ports on the front so that you can't plug in PC peripherals (including mice and keyboards), and they're not selling adapters. Microsoft wants everyone to think of the XBox only as a gaming device, never as a general-purpose computer. Signing Linux would run contrary to all their insisting that the XBox is not a PC. If you somehow ported Windows XP to the XBox, they wouldn't sign that either. The fact that Linux is GPL just makes that much less likely.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
That and the fact Bob was marketed by his Bride to Be Melinda French, I say he managed Face pretty well in that ocasion.
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Does my bum look big in this?
Please indulge me while I make an observation....
I understand why XBox Linux Project wants a digital signature from Microsoft.
I understand why people use hacked chips to run Linux on their XBox.
I even understand why Microsoft won't do it.
What I don't understand is why so many people are jumping on this "lets run Linux on xbox!" bandwagon. Be honest, 99% of you would not go buy the box just to run linux on it (the other 1% fall under the catagories of fools or too damn rich). You aren't gonna go sell your P2, and change to microsoft products.
There is no practical purpose to run Linux on the Xbox, but its fun if you have to either hack your way into it, or buy and install the mod chips. Granted. But if its just a matter of buying "Linux for Xbox", then what the HELL is the attraction? The walmart $200 pc is a better option if you just want a cheap linux box. If you don't feel like your screwing Bill G, its just not worth the effort. Admit it.
Once you take the "I'm sticking it to microsoft" out of it, there really is no purpose to run it, even for acedemic purposes. If they get the signature, fine, but the folks in here who are trying to explain WHY they would want it to run Linux are fooling themselves, but not me.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
the Xbox isn't just a video game machine- it's MS's first step at having complete control over the hardware, something that they've envied about Apple for a long time. the Xbox may be just a video game console right now, but by version 3 (which seems to be when MS gets things right) my money says it'll be a complete OS where they have complete DRM and license all the software. It makes sense- video game manufacturers have had complete monopolies on hardware and software development all this time. why wouldn't MS want that? and why in hell would they hand the keys to that over to Linux?
For those of you who don't follow the XBox modchip underground, the onboard TSOP can be flashed with a modchip's bios. The reason you need a modchip is because without a modchip, the XBox refuses to run an unsigned executable. With a signed version of Linux, you have an open system and can easily flash the onboard TSOP with a version that ignores digital signatures the same way a modchip would. Hence, an MS-signed Linux on a disc is effectively a modchip. Would it ever make sense for MS to do this? Absolutely not.
And all the crying about their monopoly is silly. Hardware vendors have restricted software that can run on their hardware for eons. It's largely for quality control reasons, but Nintendo and Sony have long killed projects after seeing distasteful material. "Thrill Kill", anyone? It's the way the industry works. Anything else and you'd see a total collapse of the console industry--not merely Microsoft's interest in it.
JH
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
I see how this could actualy benifit microsoft in some ways. It would certainly make them look better to the general public. But otherwise i can't think of any good reasons for them wanting to go through with this. Let's hope for the best.
The Blade Itself
int getRunning() { // Done!
// Get a file from the hard drive to prove we're legit
// pass controll to it
return;
}
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
$100,000 can be used to pay for one scientist for one year of his work. That's without any equipment, and it's likely to be a fairly run-of-the-mill scientist. That money would not accomplish _anything_ in terms of getting closer to a cure. To do that, you need BILLIONS of dollars and decades of time.
Microsoft will never approve Linux for the X-Box; here's why:
1) It would be a tremondours PR blow to actively give Linux inroads to their system
2) As everyone says, they make money on the games and lose money on the consoles
3) If they approve an open-source OS, then they will also lose money on games because developers will circumvent the licensing process and develop games in Linux
A MythTV (or other media center type app) is something I'd love to be able to use my X-Box as. A wallmart PC may be a better option for real work, but when I plan to use a TV as a monitor in the first place, I'll get much better quality out of something designed to interface to a TV than the built in graphics in a Walmart PC if it supports TV out or any decently priced video card I'd put in that Walmart PC. Or I could pay $100 or so for a scan converter, which would be another little box, which is less simple and elegant. Plus built in HDTV out support. Glaggghhhhh.... (Homer drool sound)
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Heh, I can imagine Clippy coming up while you're playing Halo saying "Look behind you!" dressed up like a soldier with facepaint and an m16. -phly
I take it you have never surfed the web or read your email on an average TV then ? The image quality and resolution just isn't up to it.
With the ever evolving linux kernel, won't getting it signed be sorta pointless? Games usually have one release, and Microsoft signs the binaries. I don't think MS would agree to sign a new kernel every month. Say some one wanted to hack the kernel a bit, well, their new kernel wouldn't boot. This would kill development of the kernel. MS policies and GPL style development do not mix.
Cthulhu Saves.
The Xbox sits in your living room, imagine being able to put mp3s, divx, and play dvd, and on top of that, being able to stream stuff from other pc's on your network. That's about all you could do, since the hardware is all proprietary. But I think that's enough.
On top of this, if MS does sign this, then you won't have to mod your xbox just to run media files. Once you've modded your box it gets to the point where you decide to just get pirated stuff since it's already modded.
By keeping it unmodded, you'd be able to still run games and get on xbox live. it seems to me that people would be more likely to buy non-pirated games if linux didn't require getting a mod. This should still allow people to buy legal games -- the main argument for why MS won't allow such signatures.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
The issue in this case though, is that the Linux XBox team can't crack the digital signature that Microsoft uses (AFAIK), so they have to ask Microsoft, or waste time in trying to crack it.
Yes. AFAIK too, MS use the same standards of signing as PGP does, so if the Linux teams crack their signing key in any reasonable amount of time, I'd be really fucking worried for the integrity of digital signatures as a whole. If we could crack MS's private key quickly, we could crack anyone's private key quickly.
By the time the Dreamcast was hacked, it was already dying
That's true, but then the DC did have a really short lifespan compared to other consoles. I remember using an unofficial Megadrive/Genesis dev-kit, written by cracking groups, on the Amiga in 1990, and the Megadrive was still profitable until I think about 1993-1994 when trailing-off interest and the new messiah (the Sony Playstation) killed it.
were it not for the Mill CD backdoor in the BootROM, the Dreamcast most likely would not have been hacked
Well, I think we have to thank Sony for this. Prior to the Playstation, console owners were contented not to get magazine demos like the computer owners. However, once Sony moved to CD-based media, console owners now expect game demos on magazines. While Sega made it difficult to easily pirate GD-ROMs because of the custom pressing hardware, it also made demo CDs financially unviable. So they added the CD backdoor to allow for coverdisc and trade-show demos. This is why Sony and Microsoft use media that can be duplicated with conventional CD/DVD mastering facilities, although obviously not with consumer CD-R/DVD-R drives.
some titles that had checks for whether or not they were on real discs or not
Most discs do, for virtually all games platforms. They just get cracked. If the DC games used more than the capacity of a regular CD-R, the crackers added disc-changing code. The same happened with Amiga games that used more sectors than normal copyable disks, and their game data was already fully compressed -- they were split onto two normal disks by crackers.
Actually, my favourite anti-piracy code is a tie between the anti-Action Replay code (the Amiga has a Time-Of-Day counter which continually ticks away and can't be set by software to anything other than zero -- just run normal timer interrupts and check the TOD has elapsed by the amount you expect it to, then your software can't be successfully "unfrozen" from an Action Replay "backup" (memory and register dump)) and the Rob Northen Copylock (self-decrypting-reencrypting trace mode code that depended on both register contents and the status register for correct decryption, and it read a protected track which had sectors that were fractionally longer than the sectors the Amiga/Atari could write by itself -- timing tolerance margins in the disk-reading hardware allowed for them, but they physically took longer to read, and that could be measured with the high-resolution timers).
Sure, but only if they're not bankrupted in court by a company with bigger pockets than them tying things up (i.e. Microsoft) while trying to prove it.
Yes. Thanks for the precedent, Sony.
Does my bum look big in this?
I have a crisp ten dollar bill that says the reply letter contains the words "and the horse you rode in on," verbatim.
My
Limekiller
In addition, Linux is not exactly a mainstream solution. Geeks who know how to use it will likely buy a lot of games or at the very least promote the hardware at no charge to MS.
You can think of an esoteric case of someone running a beowulf cluster of Xboxes and costing Microsoft $$$. But this threat is not likely to materialize because it would still cost money and companies with money to burn will not run their enterprise servers on a home entertainment system.
All considered, supporting Linux will promote sales of both hardware and games. MS can even charge money for a boot disk with signature without violating GPL on Linux itself.
Between the Gamecube and GameBoys Nintendo has pretty much full reign of the entire market. Microsoft has a very, very small slice. And yes, the Gameboy market is considered a console to NPD and other market share reporting industry companies.
You seem fuzzy on how conspiracy theories work...
lack of evidence is the whole point.
(On the other hand, subverting a single developer is more likely than either Microsoft agreeing to sign the code, or outsiders cracking the key. )
What if the BIOS consulted the DVD drive periodically...
BIOS: "Hey could you give me read me the key off the DVD?"
DVD: "Sure thing... there you go"
BIOS: "Wow... this isn't a signed disk, even though it used to be. Notifying the fed..."
Something like that could prevent you from doing a DVD swap. However, I guess it wouldn't keep you from loading a game from the hard drive.
A comment earlier implied that opening up the s/w architecture for this box (by unlocking the signature mechanism) would ultimately end the console model for gaming systems.
I remember (vaguely) many years ago, a game console (Colecovision?) that also had an expansion unit (keyboard, cassette tape perhaps, printer capability), so you were (if I remember right - someone feel free to add detail) buying a game system that expanded to be a basic computing system. Yes, we are talking in the pre-Windows days...
MS Seems to be doing almost the opposite. They are selling a PC as a game, but restricting its operation as a freely working PC.
A number of people questioned why anyone would actually want to use one of these boxes, especially in comparison to the Walmart PCs. I actually like the form-factor (especially to use in home entertainment centers, along with TVs and stereo gear), and am seriously considering purchasing one or more X-boxes specifically for running Linux. I think its a neat little box, and if I don't really want the walmart box, this is a nice alternative.
Also, there are people who will already have an Xbox (especially kids), who may not have the money to spend on a PC immediately, who might like to load up Linux. I read about the X-box linux project on a number of sites, and the most recent 2600 magazine edition had an article on it. One article that I saw also indicated that with some care, you can Install Linux, and still play X-box games. What's more, if you are constrained for space, you have a small-platform PC, and can still use your TV. No need for a more costly (small-footprint) PC, plus a monitor ($$), plus the space lost for the new monitor.
Now, if you get a new xbox for $200, and the mod-chip for maybe $50, you are paying a 25% toll to defeat that signature scheme. Plus the extra few steps required (cutting and soldering cable wires for the mouse and keyboard), for example, are pretty basic, but just enough to deter many who might otherwise use this project.
I am curious about how far memory or disk storage can be expanced.
I think that X-box linux is a very nice hack, and I would like to see it seen not just as a novelty, but as a means towards PC appliances, and towards low-cost computing).
Sam Nitzberg
http://www.iamsam.com
The "why run linux on an xbox" question constantly comes up in every ./ xbox story. Beige box computers are cheap. Why futz around with an xbox to run linux, then?
Here are my reasons:
1. Wife probably wouldn't mind an xbox, whereas she'd mind another computer.
2. Xbox has a nice form factor for my living room, where I would like to set up a media PC anyway.
3. Linux on the xbox will allow me to hook into my home LAN to pull MP3s from my Netfinity server and run same MP3s through a player on a tv-based interface. My tv audio runs through the stereo, so this would essentially allow me to reach all of my music without having to touch another CD. The CD storage cabinet can go in the attic.
4. I can run a web browser on my tv (at decent resolution once the HDTV thing settles in).
5. PVR.
6. MAME.
7. I can hack on websites and scripts in the family room with my wife and kid instead of doing so in office. These are "fun" items, not work, so concentration isn't too big a thing -- plus the kid might learn something.
8. I can finally play Obi Wan and Jedi Knight 2.
9. I'll have another DVD player.
10. It'll just be fun to be able to do it.
Is the xbox an ideal platform for all of these things in a perfect world? No, but it is cheap and reasonably adaptable to all of the above-listed tasks. I could buy a micro atx mobo and case and assemble something, but the xbox would be cheaper and probably better looking and more solid than anything I could muster.
I have no real religious zealotry about MS. I don't care for expensive bloatware and I like to have a little more control over my stuff than MS usually permits. I understand that some people like MS stuff and I understand (and laugh at them myself) all the MS jokes you want to send my way.
The xbox could simply be a nifty little gadget. Like MS or not, the applications I can think of for this gadget intrigue me enough to overcome my marginally anti-ms personal bias. A tool is a tool. Besides, and xbox running linux would be greatly satisfying to me from a spriritual perspective.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
Although Microsoft wouldn't do this for a number of reasons, the best one is that by signing this code, you can flash the BIOS on the Xbox without a modchip, and without ever needing a modchip. All you have to do is solder two points that are right next to each other together, or put a wire between them, and you can run the software to flash the BIOS. People have been trying to crash games to run code like this for months, you think Microsoft is just going to openly sign the code that will enable flashing of the BIOS? It's about as likely as releasing the key to sign it with!
Some believe that Microsoft's products may exhibit somewhat unreliable performance from time to time. (Hey, it's only their opinion.)
Help us serve you better. Rate this post by answering the following poll question:
This post was:
O helpful
O interesting
O sucked
Print and mail your response to the RIAA, and remember to include the post tracking number: 2985-18482834-3348-289342895-98663-1825235-0544035 -32842348234-8483-B.
Oh, well. Time for yet another Negra Modelo. This will be my fifth beer in the last half hour, and I fully intend to get more drunker than usual tonight.
Sincerely,
The Negra Modelo Troll
The XBox normal operating system is a very much stripped down version of Windows NT, running in supervisor mode. There is no user mode, applications are running in supervisor mode as well. Any binary running on an XBOX can modify the running system and can overwrite anything on disk.
The XBOX kernel executes only XBE files. These are XBOX binary files, they are self-contained. They cannot load DLLs or other extensions. Also, the XBOX kernel does not provide even I/O subroutines for controllers or other gaming hardware, the XBE has to bring even these itself in order to play.
In order to run, XBE files must be signed. Microsoft is the holder of the private key for the XBOX, so in order for your XBE to run, Microsoft must sign the binaries. As of now, they require the source of your application, compile it and sign the resulting binary. So it is not as easy as giving an arbitrary binary to Microsoft and have them sign it in order to subvert the XBOX.
If you choose not to ask Microsoft up front for signing a chain loader to load a Linux kernel, you'll have to have a genuine game, and have Microsoft sign this. This game must be buggy, and there must be some kind of circumstance where this game turns into something different that can load arbitrary code and execute it.
The most simple way to have this is to modify the USB controller routines for a game that provides custom controllers such as a steering wheel or something similar. The USB drivers for such a game must have a bug where they accept arbitrarily long USB blocks from the bus, and by accident jump to the head or end of that buffer. Thus, you can build custom USB devices that send about 1 K long USB blocks containing a chain loader and then execute this.
Your code would not be part of the code Microsoft signs, the flaw would be very innocent in your code, and the actual chain loader would not be signed and it thus changeable.
Currently, there is no key recovation scheme for code that I know of. Thus, MS cannot easily revoke the signature for that buggy game. Also, the maker of the game cannot be directly blamed for making some kind of circumvention device, as there is no actual circumvention in that code, just a flaw.
MS would most likely build the next generation of XBOXes to contain an updateable list of revoked keys, though, and probably use XBOX online gaming to distribute key revocation lists.
I don't think the point of asking is to get a certificate - MS would never allow it.
I think the point of asking is to get the 'refusal' so they can point to that.
It would be Microsoft refusing to allow competing software to run on one of its platforms.
The Linux guys could then point to Palladium, same mechanism (certs), same controller (Microsoft), same product (Linux), and point out that if Microsoft gets this in place the same thing will happen on PCs.
At the moment we're in the fuzzy denial stage, "Palladium can be turned, off", "Microsoft not that evil", "IBM Cavalry will save us",...
But thats not true, you can't turn it off because your computer has to operate with other computers that will insist on it being turned on, Microsoft *is* evil , and IBM couldn't save themselves.
This gives the Linux guys something clear they can point to, namely:
"Microsoft refused to give Linux a license to their platform on non-discriminatory terms."