Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X Intel Kernel Uses DRM
An anonymous reader submits "Several people have discovered that the new Intel kernel Apple has included with the Developer Kit DVD uses TCPA/TPM DRM. More specifically, it includes "a TCPA/Palladium implementation that uses a Infineon 1.1 chip which will prevent certain parts of the OS from working unless authorized."
I hate those bastards! I knew they were going to try and sneak this crap past us! They were plo...oh wait, did you say Apple?
Wow! Spectacular use of technology Steve! You're my hero!
I had thought that it was widely known that OS X won't run on anything not sold by Apple as a Mac.
i am a soviet space shuttle
The first person to crack this DRM implementation will win a free story about it on Slashdot!
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
More specifically, it includes "a TCPA/Palladium implementation that uses a Infineon 1.1 chip which will prevent certain parts of the OS from working unless authorized."
/. I need you! Tell me what to think!
Oh no, my two sources of zealotry are colliding. Eeek! It can't be evil if Apple does it, right... but DRM is always evil, right?
Apparently Apple's DRM kernel extension only gets involved when Rosetta is executing code. In other words, if you're running native code, there's no checking. But apparently some critical parts of the kernel are still being executed by Rosetta. And reimplementing the `AppleTPMACPI.kext' in a completely harmless manner (such that it always returns a "Yes go ahead" signal) is an option. As is replacing it at runtime via mach_override.
These boxes aren't even for sale yet. I'm sure that it'll be cracked before that even happens.
The headline states "Mac OS X Intel Kernel Uses DRM". According to TFA, it's Rosetta (the PPC emulator, which isn't written by Apple) that uses DRM, not the kernel of the OS itself: We've discovered that the Rosetta kernel uses TCPA/TPM DRM. Some parts of the GUI like ATSServer are still not native to x86 - meaning that Rosetta is required by the GUI, which in turn requires TPM. In fact, we already know that the kernel doesn't use DRM and can run on any Intel box you want, because it's open source and can be downloaded here. It's the GUI that Apple wants to be locking in to their hardware, not the kernel. I suspect that they probably will make something other than Rosetta check the TCPA chip, but that's not what is going on right now.
If you analyzed the mach_kernel binary file on the Developer Kits, you would see that the kernel is vastly different than the Darwin 8.2 that Apple released as open source. For one thing, it automatically calls the oah750 daemon (better known as Rosetta) every time that it finds a non-universal PPC executable.
Before the kernel uses Rosetta to execute the PPC application (i.e. ATSServer in the case of starting a GUI), it calls the TPM kernel extension and checks the private keys in the TCPA chip. This is the only thing, as far as is apparent, that prevents Mac OS X from flawlessly running on a non-Apple system.
Everyone here has been waiting for OSX-x86 ISOs to hit torrent sites so they can run OSX on their whitebox PCs. As has been seen many times before, not every ADC member holds up their end of the bargain with regard to their NDA. Knowing this full well it was rather obvious Apple would have to take some sort of action to keep their OS from being widely pirated within days of the first dev kits being delivered.
There's a lot of hand waving here about companies removing people's rights and slippery slope arguments along the lines of "if they do X they will eventually do Y for reason Z". This entirely ignores the fact that Tiger-x86 is probably the hottest thing to hit torrent sites in a long time. It was bad enough when developer releases of Tiger for PowerPC were making the rounds and people were making stupid assessments of the system months before release. The development kits and pre-release copies of OSX are meant to be in Mac developer hands, not Joe Dork down the street on his PC.
It is not a particular right to run OSX on anything but a Mac, the OSX EULA that you have to agree to in order to install the system specifically states that. Apple locking OSX onto Macs means they can continue to sell the machines with a straight face. No one would bother to buy a Mac if they could just grab a copy of Tiger and slap it on their PC at home. Apple would have little incentive to continue Mac development if there were no Macs being sold.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I know a great deal about TPMs, I have a computer with a TPM. They are very common. Many high end laptops and desktops have TPMs. Here is an up to date list of systems that have TPMs. They include manufacturers such as HP, IBM, Acer, NEC, Dell, Gateway, Toshiba, Fujitsu, and Samsung. You've probably heard of some of them. It's easy to get a computer with a TPM. Probably in a few years it will be hard to get a computer without one.
What does a TPM do? Essentially it is just a crypto chip. It can hold keys, and sign and encrypt data with them. It's completely passive. It never takes control of your system or does anything invasive. It doesn't even monitor the bus or snoop on data flows. It merely hashes, signs and encrypts data, on request from the CPU.
How is it used for DRM? It can't be done today. They way it would be used, sometimes in the future, is to ship the chip with a unique key pre-installed in it, and with a certificate from the manufacturer on that key. Then the BIOS and OS get enhanced to do a "trusted boot" in which every software component gets its hash reported to the TPM. This allows the TPM to send out a crypto-signed "attestation" about the software configuration on the computer. It is signed by the built-in key, and that key is known to be a legitimate TPM key by virtue of the certificate that was created at manufacture time.
This lets a remote server verify that you're running a genuine version of Media Player or iTunes and not some hacked thing that will strip the DRM and put it out on the net. Your system can report its software configuration and that attestation can't be forged, because you don't control a TPM key that has a cert on it from a TPM manufacturer.
It's a complicated system, and no part of it exists today. Manufacturers don't ship TPMs with pre-installed keys, and they don't issue certificates. Nobody wants to touch that stuff with a ten foot poll. I know, I've tried to get a computer with a certified TPM for research purposes, but they're just not available.
How would Apple use a TPM to keep the OS from running on non-Apple PCs? This is the $64 question, but I haven't seen much information about it. If they just look for the presence of a TPM, that won't help much - see above for all the computers out there that have TPMs.
My guess is that it is more likely that the mechanism Apple will use or is using to keep from running on non-Apple hardware is not the TPM. They will probably use a custom chip. The TPM is extremely standard, the Trusted Computing Group has hundreds of pages documenting it. It would be crazy to twist that standard.
Rather, I'm guessing that Apple uses the TPM for crypto purposes, possibly with an eye towards eventual DRM if and when the necessary massive infrastructure ever gets built. Due to its unique position as designer of both the computer and the software, Apple might even be in a unique position with regard to rolling out some form of TPM based DRM, just as they were among the first to create a commercially successful DRM system in iTunes. My speculation is that Apple is not using the TPM to stop hackers porting its software, they're using the TPM because it's useful. It just happens that the hackers don't have many systems with TPMs.
If so, then, it is merely accidental that the use of the TPM is a road block for experimenters determined to run the Apple software on non Apple PCs. It's possible that if they looked at the list they would find some computers lying around that had TPMs in them, and if they tried on those computers, the TPM software would work fine. Maybe the OS would then run in its current form. It sounds like it's worth a try, anyway.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
Yep - that would be the ability of the US Congress to control whether or not the copyrighters have a right to copyright. Note that it provides congress with a power, it does not provide the people with a right.
Importantly, it has the clause "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" - once copyright is no longer filling that role, it should not be in place...
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco