Slashdot Mirror
Xbox Linux Made Possible Without a Modchip
An anonymous reader writes "Free-X have released an exploit for the Xbox that will let you get Linux on the machine without any hardware mods at all... Microsoft is already threatening them with legal action. Here's the Free-X statement. Free-X say they had been trying to contact MS for a month but were ignored, which is why they've released the exploit. Should be interesting to watch this one."
Too late for Microsoft. It's been released. No way of stopping it. Just like Nintendo had no way of stopping UltraHLE.
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
...did they really think Microsoft would give in to their "demands" AND legitimize X-Box hacking at the same time? Give me a break. Why would it make sense for Microsoft to encourage Linux installs on a product solely meant to play games and movies, when it doesn't even port it's cash cow software for the real desktop OS? I hate to make this comparison (because of the can of worms it's sure to open), but it's like terrorists who try to bargain hostages for freeing their buddies. You CAN'T bargain with them, because it simply encourages others to follow in their path.
Congrats to the guys for the hard hacking work, but get a little business sense and in the meantime, better get a lawyer. This ain't gonna make the boyz in Redmond none too happy.
Chris
Looks like it's open season on the Xbox now, but I'm a bit confused. The ZDnet article mentions the $100,000 no hardware mod prize, yet right in the exploit description it states:
Q1: How do I get the files onto the harddisk?
A1: There are several ways. You could f.e. install the files with the Mechassault or 007 hacks. This requires one of the games and the files on a memorycard. The other way is to open the box and do the harddisk swap trick which is described all over the net.
So if you need to use an existing hack to do this, and those hacks didn't qualify for the prize, how could this one? Any Xbox experts care to comment?
Additionally, isn't it nice to see that companies are now suing on a regular basis for exploit publication. Good that they only want black hats posessing this sort of information.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
our team has been accused of attempting to extort or blackmail Microsoft
From the article, seems that is exactly what they tried to do:
For the exchange, we were requesting but not demanding the following:
- Complete access to all documentation (chipsets, video etc.) to assist in developing a better Linux for the XBox.
- A signed Linux loader.
- Protection from Microsoft or support if any organisation/government attempted to prosecute members of our team.
- Refunding of the cost occured during the agreement period.
Not demanding? Why would Microsoft politely offer any of those things?
It's too bad they probably won't get the 100k. In order to get the files onto the xbox, you need to use a prior exploit that DOES require something(007 save, swapping HDD etc).
I want you to assume that all spelling and grammar errors are intentional. Thank You.
I think you meant http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/vulnwatch/2 003-q3/0008.html (ie without the extraneous space) but yeah, given that they're 100% identical to each other, including the name of the author, i'm guessing that they just _might_ be the same exploit.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
> How is releasing information about a bug going to land them in court? Microsoft had plenty of time to respond, but they didn't.
You can sue over basically anything. They could bring them to court simply to say they thought their assertion of demands/requests resembled black mail. They have the weight/money/political connections to bring a very trivial detail into the court room.
You should never challenge a powerful company like this. Have a lawyer draft up all communications, keep complete records of all activies and communications within the group, and do not volunteer any information without council present.
Having help doesn't make you look guilty, it makes you look prepared and intellegent. The way these guys handled their communications (spelling errors and all) makes them look like out of control destructive teenagers.
Rob
The only reason Microsoft has to care about putting another operating system on x-box is because they are dumping them.
Dumping things undervalue as a monopoly is unethical and illegal in many places. I'd like to see that in some news stories, instead of no explanation why microsoft would care at all what someone did with their own bought hardware.
"You should never challenge a powerful company like this."
Nope. I gotta disagree with that.
I for one do NOT believe "powerful" aka rich companies shoudn't be challenged. Having money should not mean carte-blanch authority to steamroll customers over trivialities and the greater business community should be wary of any organisation that grows unchecked. It may be difficult (especially if the court is swayed by financial contributions) but powerful companies should ALWAYS be challenged.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Who cares about the DMCA. Most of the six billion world population lives outside the USA.
The DMCA? Last time I checked American law wasn't a global thing.
It's one thing to phone up MS and say 'I've found out something you might like to know about and keep secret', and another to phone up and say 'I've got some information you might like to know about and keep secret - and I'd like you to pay me money, indemnify me against legal consequences, and give me a job - or I'll release it to the public'.
The fact that when they were ignored, they carried out the implicit threat of releasing the information (implicit in their suggestion that they'd sign an NDA in exchange for money), makes it look like blackmail to me.
It's the demand for personal gain that makes the threat of disclosure into blackmail.
It's very simple... According to the DMCA, you point at something and call it "copyright protection", and if anybody does anything to it, you sue them to holy hell.
Quite simple really.
For instance, if I was to make a CD that doesn't play, I will call it copy protected, meaning it works (because I say so) and you don't get your money back. Then, when someone figures out how to make it work, I sue them into submission.
It has other purposes as well. For instance, it can be very useful in extorting money, and bending people to your will.
You see, what you do is invent a copy protection scheme (we'll call it CSSS) and make it standard on some multimedia format (that we'll call DVDDs). Unfortunately, no copy protected device has ever gotten popular, so to make sure yours gets popular, you make CSSS so crappy that a 5-year old could break it. Now, your DVDD format will get popular, because people can all copy the DVDD discs.
Then, when anyone want's to make a DVDD player, they can't, unless they get permission to use CSSS from you. Before you allow them to use CSSS, you simply require a huge ammount of money, and force them to sign a contract saying they will do everything you tell them to, and include nothing extra on their CSSS players that you don't like.
Now, you are raking in the money, and you control the entire DVDDs player market, because the DMCA doesn't allow anyone to get around your crappy CSSS without your permission.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Anyone arguing that allowing Linux on an XBox is going to sell more Xboxen is clearly deluded. The only reason people want to put Linux on an XBox (or any other device that is not sold for such purposes) is for reasons of pure hacker fun (weee, look! linux on xbox! take that m$) and also because we all feel we're poking billg in the eye at the same time. Admit it. I do.
- Oisin
PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
Reminds me strongly of the way typical bug-in-your-code exchanges go with companies:
"There's a flaw in your code."
"There's no flaw in our code."
"I'm telling people there's a flaw in your code."
"Alright, there is a flaw, but we're not fixing it."
"I'm telling people how to exploit this flaw in your code."
"Ok! Ok, we'll fix the bug."
These guys have been telling Microsoft that they can run Linux on an Xbox without a mod chip for months. Microsoft has ignored their warnings about the "flaw" in their "code," so we've now arrived at "I'm telling people how to exploit it." Unfortunately, because the majority of people on capital hill are mildly retarded and/or (emphasis on the "and") corporate bitches, Microsoft will NOT be forced to fix the error, but will simply sue the people who publicize the flaw because it involves encryption.
For those to whom it is NOT already patently obvious, THIS is the danger of the DMCA: Companies that provide defective products involving encryption are NOT forced to repair the error or lose business, they now have the option of silencing the white-hats who try to warn them, and trying to ignore the hordes of black-hats who are now working to duplicate the exploit.
Naturally, when involving open-source software, the DMCA becomes irrelevant, because anyone can see and fix the code: We do not have to wait in the hallowed corporate halls waiting for a magic trinket, and that is what they (in reference to greedy CEO's and their ilk, for whom the pursuit of money has become a late-stage cancer) fear.
Ok, I am done rambling. You may now resume your regularly scheduled indoctrination.
the DMCA has no teeth in Austria where these guys seem to live
The european version of the DMCA, the EUCD came into force in Austria on July 1st. (I even think the directive could be used against them before that, though it hasn't been transcribed into austrian law). The mailing list message was sent on July 4th. (quite symbolically...)
On the other hand, the picture's pretty murky anyway. The EUCD doesn't change the status for computer programs, and that's what we're really talking about here. It's also important that this exploit has several effects. It may be used for playing pirated games, (nono) but it is also a tool for using the X-box for quite legitimate purposes, like building a home media system etc. Also, the exploit is not done on the programs themselves, but on the platform. Then there is the issue of changing the font files. I don't quite get whether they used changed MS font files or rolled their own. If they use changed MS files, MS might be able to go after them on their "artistic rights".
I recommend finding an austrian lawyer. (And a sympathetic judge...)
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
>The ability to completely hiijack a competitors hardware technology.
Funny, I don't recall leasing an XBox from Microsoft. When I put that money down, as far as I'm aware, I bought it. It became my property.
I wonder, what goods or services am I stealing from Microsoft by running lunix on my XBox?
Their attitude seems to be that after you buy an XBox, you owe them more money in games sales.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
You only leased that XBox. It still belongs to us, in principle, if not (yet) legally in fact because we chose to sell it at a loss. You're not allowed to do anything to it that we don't want you to, nor to tell anyone how to do anything to such things. Ever. Running Linux on it is stealing from us. You owe us more money in games sales, you thief.
Next week: Gilette to sue people who buy one of their razors and then figure out or tell anyone how to remove and resharpen the blades rather than buying more.
Next month: Coca Cola Enterprises Ltd to sue people who buy a bottle of Dr Pepper, drink it, then use it to fetch water from the office water cooler. Damn, that's me busted.
Let's face it, we're only valued customers as long as we're meeting our implicit obligation to continue consuming. The instant we try and (ab/re)use a product without paying more money to the manufacturer, we bcome heartless thieves, possibly communists, maybe even terrorists.
Linux user, why do you hate America so much?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If current copyright and IP laws and the interretation thereof were in affect in the mid - 80's what could we expect?
1. PC's would still cost thousands of dollars
2. The only companies to produce BIOS codes would be IBM, and people that paid IBM royalties
3. The Internet would only be available to people in colleges and government - and the content would be heavily censored
4. The only PC manufacture would be IBM and all others would be "illegal copies".
5. All operating systems that ran on PC's would have to be liscenced from Microsoft
6. 20" Rims would have to be liscenced from GM as the own the IP for "the oversized sport tire package"
7. Performance exhaust systems are a Ford product exclusively.
8. CD-R's would have been outlawed and require a liscence to buy or own
9. There would only be 1 word processing program
10."Reverse Engineering" would be a legal term used at your prosecution.
You think it's crazy? Saying that you can buy a game/toy and are not allowed to open it up under penalty of jail - THAT is crazy. Why doesn't MS tell the truth, you didn't BUY anything except the right to use your toy. In actuality, according to their liscence (or my interpretation) that box that you plunked down 200 bucks for isn't even yours. Get used to it, unless there is a revolt, it is the way of the future. You will own nothing - but you will be allowed to use things, provided you pay enough $$$.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Say I don't like WinXP on my Dell. I remove it, repartition and install linux. I can do that because I OWN the box. I'm entitled to do whatever I want with it.
Now look at the Xbox. The Xbox is a system much like a Dell with windows, the only difference is you can't easily uninstall/repartition... until now. Why is this illegal? I bought my Xbox. I OWN every part of that machine. No where does it say "Property of Microsoft" on my Xbox. Can't I do whatever I want with it? Can't Free-X release any software they want for it, much like 3rd parties can release software of their own? .02
Yeah, sure, it's legal to *sell* a closed system. However, there is absolutely no legal basis that allow a seller to prevent a consumer from opening it. The most they could do would be to void all warranties if you do anything unapproved.
If MS can say that you can't open it or run software on it, does that also mean that MS can keep you from reselling it or smashing it with a sledgehammer or just tossing the whole thing in the garbage?
If someone wants to maintain control of a device after they give it to the consumer, their only choice is to rent it to the consumer and maintain the ownership themselves.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
When did anyone ever agree not to tamper with the Xbox? This is a hardware product, not licensed software. You buy it, you own it. After you've paid for it, there are no legal restrictions on what you can do with it--smash it, put it in a closet and never use it, run Linux on it, etc.
Are you an MS employee? Your post is so full of blatant lies I don't see any other possibility.
any firm/soft-ware that came with the device you only have a license to use.. at their terms.
Fine then, I don't accept the terms of the license. I guess I gotta delete the software. Hmm, now what am I going to do with my XBOX? I know! I'll run Linux on it!