Slashdot Mirror
The Hidden Boot Code of the Xbox
Device666 writes "In order to lock out both copied games as well as homebrew software, including the GNU/Linux operating system, Microsoft built a chain of trust on the Xbox reaching from the hardware to the execution of game code, in order to avoid the infiltration of code that has not been authorized by Microsoft. The link between hardware and software in this chain of trust is the hidden "MCPX" boot ROM. The principles, the implementations and the security vulnerabilities of this 512 bytes ROM will be discussed in this wikipedia article entitled
How to fit three bugs in 512 bytes of security code."
Thanks for not reading your own site, CmdrTaco
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Just because some text is available on a Wiki, it's not automatically so on Wikipedia, y'know?
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
the slashdotrix adjusting itself... Pay no attention to that cat.
The principles, the implementations and the security vulnerabilities of this 512 bytes ROM will be discussed in this wikipedia article entitled How to fit three bugs in 512 bytes of security code.
So it seems someone doesn't know the difference between a page with wiki technology and Wikipedia.
512b of space. NExT ON SLASHDOT!
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
Ahh yes but I wouldn't expect editing to occur on Slashdot
The thing everyone needs to remember is that slashdot is akin to Norman Bates, a lot of them are confused, a lot of them crossdress and are very often psychotic.
So, the next time you see a dupe.. remember, be quiet.. or you could be murdered by a crossdressing psychopath.
Is that over or under Microsoft's par?
Easy. Just put one bug in every 170.666666666666667 bytes and you will be done.
Spoken like a true person who hasn't seen a modded xbox.
Have you metaroderated recently?
At least Microsoft provides the same level of security to it own hardware as its does yours. You can't accuse Microsoft of playing favorites.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
What is morally wrong about doing whatever you want with something you paid for and own?
What's morally wrong is anyone arbitrarily dictating what you can and cannot do with your personal property.
Wow. Was it something in the coffee this morning?
First of all, it a dupe with another article in the games section.
Then it's wrong. The article isn't from wikipedia.
Finally, nice sensationalist terms:
- Oh noes, this code locked out GNU/Linux! Bad Microsoft!
- Hah, Microsoft can't even write 512 bytes of code without bugs!
Oh, and that last part was only the subtitle of the article, not the real title. But no thanks for pointing it out.
Read the interesting linked article, or the comments on the original post on games.slashdot, but this article here is exactly what I don't like seeing on Slashdot.
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
Are you serious? Put down the kool-aid for a sec and consider this. If I buy something (a physical something), I own it. It's mine. If I buy and X-Box and am of the ilk that likes to know what makes things tick, it's my prerogative (and certainly within the bounds of morality) to tear it apart and put it back together. If I can make my X-Box boot Linux (which, contrary to your implication can have a very significant and useful purpose) then more power to me. I will certainly share my knowledge with others who wish to do the same. When it comes to stealing games (copyrighted works of "art"), you are dealing with an entirely different issue. That is akin to me being able to throw my buddy's X-Box into a replicator, push a few buttons and voi lah! 2 X-Boxen. Don't confuse the two concepts. Now, commence kool-aid drinking.
Posted by CmdrTaco on Friday August 12, @10:32AM
from the stuff-to-read dept.
Oh the irony...
http://stoploudness.org/
That's why I always rub bacon on the shrink-wrap and let my dog open it. Then he's bound by the EULA, not me.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
"But damn can't we at least brand the people who are breaking the EULA's and such for these "hacks." "
What EULA? When I bought my XBox I did not sign anything?
"At least I am not the unscrupulous individual who is taking the time and effort into doing something that is morally wrong."
Okay why is it unscrupulous to hack a product I own to do what I want to do with it? If I guy a house is it immoral to add on a room or to tile the floor? If I buy a book is it wrong for me to make notes in the margin? If I buy a CD is it wrong to skip the tracks I really do not like? If I buy a model kit and us those parts to make a different model is that evil? If I buy a car and then put in a new stereo system and better shocks am I dammed to hell? Just how is any of this unscrupulous or immoral?
If their is a bug in that boot code that has security issues then how bringing it to light any more immoral than reporting that flaw in a car publicly?
Your concept of what is moral and what is not is odd at best. If you just want to play games on your XBox then to play some games.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I see no philosophical problem with Microsoft locking their BIOS down, using trusted computing to prevent unauthorized code.
What I have a problem with is the law that says I can't try to break the lock on something I own. I have a problem with the law that says I can't talk about this activity.
Now, I prefer to buy robust, user-modifiable devices. I will spend my dollars on my preference. I worry about the marketplace being dominated by TCPA devices, but I don't have a philosophical objection to those things existing.
The DMCA is just beginning to effect our lives. Give it another ten years to poison "intellectual property". If people own ideas, enforcement can only come in the form of thought control.
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
So, I have a question actually relevant to this article. The article says that the CPU was supposed to jump to address FFFF_FFFF, turn off the ROM, then roll over to 0000_0000, where the CPU would throw an exception thus halting the CPU. However, says the article, the CPU does not in fact throw an exception in this case.
So my question is, how did the hackers who reverse engineered this code conclude that it was supposed to trigger an exception? It seems hard for me to believe that the MS engineers would base their entire security mechanism on a feature of the CPU that didn't actually exist.