Slashdot Mirror
Apple Files Patent for "Tamper-Resistant Code"
freaktheclown writes "The US Patent and Trademark Office has revealed that Apple has filed patent no. 20050246554 for a "system and method for creating tamper-resistant code." The system is presumably for use in Apple's Intel version of its Tiger operating system."
For those who are interested, link to the original application publication.
I'm pretty sure it will be tampered with.
"A system and method for creating tamper-resistant code are described herein. In one embodiment, the method comprises receiving a first object code block. The method also comprises translating the first object code block into a second object code block, wherein the translating includes applying to the first object code block or the second object code block tamper-resistance techniques. The method also comprises executing the second object code block. "
can i get a umm i understand but.. wtf?
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Why didn't I think of that?
Seriously, this idea sounds so silly, it will only invite more developers to hack OSx86 in their spare time. With OpenDarwin already ported to x86, unless they make serious changes to the OS X kernel, I doubt any measure of TPM will be able to keep people from homebrewing their Macs now.
Seeing how Apple's business model revolves mostly around hardware sales, I can understand why they'd go to such lengths to keep people from installing it on any computer they want.
Havoc Video
In other news ... Microsoft files patent for sucking-resistent code.
it will resist for less than a week?
It's called "tamper-resistant" because the Titanic was unsinkable.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Sounds kind of like having an acid that can eat through anything. How do you can you keep it in a container if it can eat through anything?
Wonder if it will take more than 48 hours for someone to figure out a way to crack this one?
20050246554 = 2*3*13*9437*27239
1. A method comprising: receiving a first object code block; translating the first object code block into a second object code block, wherein the translating includes applying tamper-resistance techniques to the first object code block or the second object code block; and executing the second object code block.
Sounds like a checksum would fall into that category.
I do believe HAL 9000's tamper resistant code kicked into high gear around hour 2 of 2001.
"I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that"
Why do you think that is funny?
I wonder if this is to make the OS 'rootkit resistant' considering the recent Sony rootkit fiasco. I mean to just prevent Tiger from running on any X86, I would guess some hardware protection system would be way more secure than a pure software solution.
Is this kind of like copy-protected dvds?
will be needed just to decipher/execute the algorithm (whatever it maybe or want to accomplish) in one clock cycle so that it is tranparent to the user?
They didn't say tamper-proof. They said resistant. The scheme they describe would make it rather hard to alter they bytestream.
The Titanic was really sink-resitant...
What do you know I wrote a novel
My first reaction to this subject was "there is no code which cannot be cracked, given enough time and determination."
After looking over the article, the method reminds me of Synapse Software's SynCalc (and related) programs for the 8-bit Atari computers. They had some real good code obfuscation, and they managed to do it in less that 48K of RAM! I never did get as far as figuring out whether they were using more than one level of a virtual machine, code obfuscation, or what have you.
Sounds to me like asymetrical encryption similar to code certificates in the .NET platform.
Havoc Video
...that they just want people not to tamper with their code? I see no need for a patent. I recall a time when a patent was for something important: a novel idea or mechanism of some kind. Making a patent doesn't really do much, other than making it impossible for other people/companies to hack into osX 86. But then again, it was illegal anyway, so no one could (legally) hack osX x86 before this patent. Seems kind of redundant.
public class null extends java applet { System.out.print ("Tabula Rasa"); }
They are patenting Perl?
For me as an administrator in a Mac-centric company, the most interesting part of this is Apple's accomodation of Linux, Windows and the Mac OS on their intel platform while simultaneously attempting to prevent their OS from being installed on a generic intel PC. If Apple can pull it off, it will give a significant value-add to their intel boxes. That's something that Micheal Dell would give his right arm to be able to do.
20. A method comprising: receiving a system call, wherein the system call is formatted for requesting a service from a first operating system, wherein the system call is included in a first object code block, wherein the first object code block is a run-time translation of a second object code block; determining which system call services of a second operating system are needed for providing the service; determining whether system call services for servicing the system call have been disabled, wherein the determining is based on a tamper-resistance policy; servicing the system call, if the system call services for servicing the system call have not been disabled.
21. The method of claim 20, wherein the tamper-resistance policy disables system call services that access system resources.
22. The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.
23. The method of claim 20, wherein the second operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.
Back in the day when memory was at a premium (64k-bytes max), self-replicating code was the bane of both "hackers" and sys admins.
(yawn)
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
I have a program for creating tamper-resistant code. It's called gcc or something.
... kindhearted soul please translate claim 20 from Lawyer to plain English for me?
20. A method comprising: receiving a system call, wherein the system call is formatted for requesting a service from a first operating system, wherein the system call is included in a first object code block, wherein the first object code block is a run-time translation of a second object code block; determining which system call services of a second operating system are needed for providing the service; determining whether system call services for servicing the system call have been disabled, wherein the determining is based on a tamper-resistance policy; servicing the system call, if the system call services for servicing the system call have not been disabled.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
However, the patent describes a process whereby users would be able to load one of three operating systems as their primary OS and then load a secondary operating system as their secondary OS. In the patent application, titled, System and method for creating tamper-resistant code, they describe the process as thus:
From the sound of this, Apple is indeed going to do what I had simultaneously hoped for and feared: They're going to enable people to boot into OS X and run Windows at the same time (and vice versa)-- probably very similar to the way Classic runs now.
I had hoped for this because it makes switching infinitely easier-- people can just load up Windows and their apps on their Intel-based Mac, and make a gradual transition to OS X. Those who use Windows-only vertical-market apps will have the world of the Mac opened up to them.
I had feared this because there are bound to be some cheap/lazy asshole developers who will take one look at the Windows compatibility environment, cancel the Mac versions of their products, and tell Mac users to just use the Windows versions in said compatibility environment. I'd hate to see this reverse the Mac application availability renaissance that has been going on for the last few years.
~Philly
Temperature-resistant code ?
Apple has a patent for method and apparatus creating patterns of ones and zeroes in which any given one and zero is impossible to change to zero and one, respectively. And to be honest the only reason that I will not ridicule them is that I really love their products. Sue me!
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
I for one welcome our new tamper-resistant overlords.
Get your Unix fortune now!
If that is your experience and Apple won't stand behind their products you should get a Dell or whatever...unless you use OS X. FWIW I've got a nano with no scratches (well noticeable anyway) and I've had decent luck with Apple service. If they tell you that your screen is fine when you think it isn't I'd definately shop elsewhere... And wait for OS X to be cracked.
Tamper-resistant perhaps, but not tamper-proof! Cracks to this (along with everything else developed for the mac) are readily available. As the popularity of the platform grows, so will the number of people cracking, hacking and providing patches.
Essentially, I cannot imagine how it could happen effectively. I program is a series of isntructions. We can talk about multiprocessor systems and all that all day long, but the fact is, it's code that is watching code to ensure it is authentic.
That said, someone could try to create a processor that does not but audit the code being run and that it be outside of the main system's functions. I can imagine a lot of things that could be done with a scenario like that... but again, just like a thousand other things, it'll be hackable.
Apple should just face the facts: Build on a system that is already populated with crackers and coders who are intimately familiar with hacking software systems, and you are giving them a new toy to play with. They had a good thing going when they were vending relatively unique hardware. Now they have decided to switch, ever increasingly, to less propietary hardware in order to save costs. They did it when they adopted PCI, PC style memory and IDE mass storage devices. Before long, people were upgrading their own systems with non-Apple stuff. Now the very core of the computer itself is being moved over to something more readily available on the market... they don't expect people to want to play?
They are going to spend a LOT of money to avoid the unavoidable... they are going to waste a LOT of money. At some point they are going to have to choose either to abandon the OSX86 project and go back to PowerPC or just live with the fact that some people will run their OS on PCs not made by them.
This article has been up on mac-centric news sites for a while now. The difference is that all the others pointed out the more interesting aspect of the new patents: You can select, from MacOS X, Windows, and Linux a primary OS and secondary OS.
So not only is Apple not preventing users from installing Windows or Linux along side OS X, they are going out of their way to enable them to do so.
Michael Dell is feeling a tightening of the rectum right about now.
And yet...slashdotters are still preoccupied with how Apple might someday try to prevent the OS from being installed on non-Apple hardware.
I think Arxan has significant prior art here. They specifically mention obfuscation. I unfortunately can't say much more other than that I've seen some demos of what they offer under NDA. I wish their web site had more meat (e.g. a white paper). I will say they have some bright guys, some of whom come from the NSA, working with them. Heck, even Gene Spafford's on their technical advisory board.
And for the paranoid, I've mentioned nothing above I couldn't find on Arxan's or someone else's public website.
Program Intellivision!
it's candle proof? it can't be narrowed?
That sounds hip and jaded, but it also belies a disturbing lack of faith in society. Next you'll declare that all employees care about, by definition, is their paycheck -- therefore they don't care if their job consists of beating children with baseball bats, as long as it pays the bills. And all politicians care about is getting elected, therefore they'll just put their feet up and masturbate once they get into office; and all men care about is sex, and all women care about is babies ... et cetera.
In this specific case, what's wrong with Apple developing technology to make its products hard to emulate or reverse-engineer? Aside from its potential for harassing pirates, I don't see the harm in it. And the harm to pirates is most likely illusory anyway, since pirates and crackers are a very, very resourceful demographic.
Tamper-proof code is still ultimately only as secure as the hardware at its weakest link, and that weakest link for Apple will be this: The DVD that a new OS upgrade ships on. Put it in the drive, read it off. From there, it's only a matter of a carefully developed emulation environment and a precise sequence of code patches until the software is just as redistributable as the latest RedHat image.
Still, and as has been said a million times already, Apple doesn't need to make it impossible - just inconvenient for the layman. And even if Apple ties its OS to its hardware with a zillion steel cables, ... what's the loss, for a company that refuses to license them separately? You wouldn't complain that the software operating your Honda Accord isn't portable to your Ford Taurus, would you? (Well, if you're a Linux rivethead, you'd probably point and laugh, but you still wouldn't complain.)
As for the Powerbook with strips "all over" the LCD ... call AppleCare and keep complaining until they take it back. A friend of mine (who now works for Apple, ironically) sent his 15" PowerBook back THREE TIMES before receiving a machine that didn't have white spots on the LCD, and Apple paid the postage both ways each time. (They also told him they were tracking all the returns in order to build a legal case against the supplier of their LCD screens.)
And as for "why shouldn't I just buy a Dell", ... I don't know, why shouldn't you just buy a Dell? Get the freaking system you'll be happy with. The rest is just slashdot-esque dick-measuring.
As an owner of both objects you meention a powerbook ,a nano, and a video ipod I have to agree with you in some ways.My powerbook is a year old I just sold it on e-bay because although it has a sleek design and tiger Osx works great my pc laptop is faster and I can run more programs on it Apple makes nice stuff but its overpriced for what it is and so is the software....And the video ipods csratch as bad or worse than the nano thats why both of mine are in cases.I just bought a new dell laptop 140m xps.I will stick with pcs.I did not know about the issues with the new powerbook thats too bad..
From reading it, I think it has more to do with TPM....
In one embodiment the system comprises a processor and a memory unit coupled with the processor. In the system, the memory unit includes a translator unit to translate at runtime blocks of a first object code program into a blocks of a second object code program, wherein the blocks of the second object code program are to be obfuscated as a result of the translation, and wherein the blocks of the second object code program include system calls.
TPM contains flash. and can obfuscate code at runtime. I'm not in the know, except that I have worked on some publicly available TPM spec stuff.
You are right. I have said before I think the move to the Intel platform will be the end of the Mac as a distinctive platform. Why port your app when it will run at near native speed in a Mac version of VMWare, or via WINE? Now comes this. I hate to be a downer but that's my fear.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Using Classic (or for that matter, X) apps on OS X is certainly possible, and even fairly easy -- but it's just enough of a PITA to remind you that you're not using the OS's native environment. I suspect that any Apple-built Windows compatibility layer will be the same way. People will put up with it if they have to, but their preference will be for native OS X versions.
;)
I mean, there's probably an entire team at Apple devoted to making it just right: easy enough to claim compatibility, hard enough to act as a spur for native development. And they probably have tastefully decorated offices, too.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Buy anything but Dell and their fucking Indian Tech Support Division.
No worries mate, it worked out pretty good for OS/2 Warp.
The more you know, the less you understand.
microsoft's aim in supporting TCPA was to make their code "tamper resistant" by encrypting parts of the OS with pgp style encryption.. and using tpm modules to store the private pgp code. thereby making only the cpu and "trusted" applications capable of running the code through disassemblers.
To see apple jumping at something like this first is scary. When i found out apple boards had TPM's i suspected, though objectively. To me.. apple is pretty much signalling their intent to join ranks with gates and his hollywood buddies and cooperate with their plans to push lock down computing. Knowing how jobs has reacted to drm in the past.. it's just shameful.
What's sad is it' was never necessary. From what i remember of my hardware courses last semester, the newest x86 cpus are basically a cisc interpreter attached to a risc chip. All apple would have to do is have intel make the chips: A. without the interpreter at all.. thus making it a different platform with added benefit of greater efficiency and cost savings to boot.. or B. work with intel to make a different microcode interpreter.
I'm glad i bought the last of the PPC generation powermacs because it looks as if apple will lose a customer. Over the past 2.5 years i've poured over 10 grand into apple because it was objectively the best by a slim margin.. guess not anymore. linux will be king now, and a lot lighter on my wallet.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
JTK: And, M-5, what is the punishment for murder?
M5: This... Unit... Must... Die...
JTK: Scotty, GET down TO ENgiNEEEEring-- KWIKK! PULL the PLUGGGG Scotty...
~~~~~~~~~ Meanwhile, in another timeline....
SON: Ensign Kim, would you like to copulate?
EHK: Hey baby, assimilate ME!
SON: Resistance is FYOO-TYLE! Bend Over Ensign Harry Kim while I plug you into the Borg Vinculum and neutralize your pain receptors...This is going to get hairy, Harry.
EHK: But, Seven, what's with that Balun?
SON: Relax, I must unbalance your annular confinement corridor in order to insert my Borg tubules... This will not hurt
~~~~~~~~~
Between pulling plugs and grafting code, how long will it take for tiger to tire out or panther to start panting? It becomes unbearable for the bear, fishy for the fish, a dog-day for the dog, for-the-birds for the birds.... and code-dead for the dead code...
(Yeh, it's been a looonnnnngggg day....)
image-word: preserve...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
After reading this story, I would like to know how much hardware development Apple is doing for the new Intel processor based Macs. All of my computers have been Macintoshes, from the PowerBook 520c, Blue & White Power Mac G3 (500 Mega Hurts), to my new Power Mac G5 (Dual 2.7GHz G5 w/ 3GB RAM). Apple has taken a very active role in developing the processor for PowerPC chips and chip sets; this is what makes the Power Mac G5 very fast at some tasks. I would like to know if Apple intends to use off-the-shelf high end motherboards or is actively developing its own chip sets. I know that the new Mactel computers will have Marklar, a PowerPC instruction set converter for the Intel processors, but what else is novel about the new MacTels? I rather like the fact that my computer is unique, and not made of components by the metric ass-load flowing out of China. Apple has always built durable systems, at least from my experience, all of my computers, including my Apple IIgs still work. The jump to Intel mother boards is concerning to me, especially since IBM is beginning to get the lead out of its ass with regard to the PowerPC G5 and derivatives (for XBox 360 and Cell-based technologies for the upcoming Sony PlayStation 3). I think that IBM makes really good processors, and I do not support the switch to Intel processors, unless Intel can remove ALL, and I mean ALL of the legacy crap from its procesors from 20+ years ago. New technologies must be adapted, often aggressively while discarding old technology for true progress to be made. Apple has demonstrated that with its PowerPC-based Macs for years.
I would think that if Apple was developing its own chip sets and mother boards, it would be rather difficult to install Mac OS X on any biege Wintel box. Apple also has in the past created software that "knows" what hardware it's running on, G3, G4, G5, etc... and will not allow for operating system installation based on the hardware. Apple must be anticipating a very aggressive attempt by the script kiddies to get Mac OS X to run on any biege Wintel box.
All your porphyrin are belong to us. What you say?
Now, I'm kinda noobish, but what would happen if Microsoft purposely built in an incompatibility with Windows on Apple hardware or made their future Office suite incompatible by checking the hardware or OS or something? Could that be done and would that lock people into Windows again or would it be suicidal? I'm not totally against MS, but I kind of see them pulling something like that.
hmmm, method means a piece of code in a particular memory location executes, then in the same memory location a new piece of code executes. sounds not a lot different that something normally done by any application that wants to reuse a bit of memory to me.
In Soviet Russia, the code tampers with *YOU*.
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
I like Apple products, and I think that on balance the company has done a lot of good for the personal computer industry over the years. However, I really hope they don't keep going down the software patent road. We've seen much gnashing of teeth on Slashdot over similar moves by Microsoft. Let's not be hypocrites. Apple needs to wake up and recognize that they'll gain less than they'll lose from patenting software.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
22: The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.
23: The method of claim 20, wherein the second operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.
29: The method of claim 24, wherein the machine includes an operating system selected from the set consisting of Microsoft Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.
66: The machine-readable medium of claim 64, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Microsoft Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.
67: The machine-readable medium of claim 64, wherein the second operating system is selected from the set consisting of an Apple Macintosh Operating System, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.
Or did you make a mistake within the claim for superior intellect, thus unwittingly introducing irony to your signature ?
I don't actually care about bad spelling, but like I say, I'm curious which of the two above it was...
"You don't know what 'irony' is, do you Baldrick ?"
"'course I do!"
"Well, what is it ?"
"It's like bronzy, but harder..."
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
It appears to me that Apple will provide at this time, the ultimate mass apeal personal computer. Windows users can easily switch and still use their library of software. Linux users and hackers can use and develop under GPL or their choice of licensing, and join in with Apple's Public Source Licensing. What it looks like it will prevent is developers creating 'MacWindows', or 'WinMac' apps (at least commercially).... of course hackers will do what they do no matter what. The best part will be that Windows won't be able to knock the users computer out of being productive when it eventually gets broken, as so many home and small business systems do.
Jobs has publically stated that Apple is not in the business of treating its customers like criminals. And what in Apple’s past suggests they support Digital Restrictions Management? I would like to point out that not even the iPod has any form of DRM to prevent you from recovering songs off of it.
So, care to clarify this at all?
Join Tor today!
I recently had a friend ask me for help in debugging a PHP extension for some CMS... Ah, Google to the rescue; it was SEF Advance, a Joomla extension that did... something, I never really bothered to find out. Anyway, issue was that the guy was trying to debug the script locally (maybe to add something) and it was saying that it "was only licensed to x and y domains", where x and y were the production servers. The code itself was a bunch of open source config variables, then a statement as follows:
:^D)
eval(gzinflate(base64_decode('7T39Vxs5k...')));
The parameter went on for ages. When I changed the eval to echo, I got another block of the same, only the data was different. Apparently the guy had just gzipped his code over and over (five times to be exact) and used that as "encryption" so nobody would be able to modify it. I got around it in around five minutes, and sure enough, the domains were simply an array in the decrypted (inflated?) code.
The point is, according to the parent, it looks like Apple is patenting object code encryption, which has been done many, many times before in many different ways. I'm sure that the rest of the patent indicates something "unique" (and I put unique in quotes because there's no way to know it hasn't been done before somewhere) but in the end it's just diminishing possible future innovations by a little bit, like all software patents.
(Does this mean I'm liable under the DMCA?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Sounds to me like a challenge. Remeber what MS said about NTFS in the begining?
Just one example, there are many. Believe or not, there are a lot of people in the world who value things other than just "pure profit at any cost." You might not be one of them, or know any personally, but they are out there, millions of them. Yes, many corporations and people are pure greedhogs, but it's not "all". And, at last in the US, the original deal with corporations was to be of the public interest and benefit, corporate profits were secondary. Too bad we lost our way there some time back. Perhaps eventually it might change for the better. Anyway, read on here:
n +human+rights/2100-1028_3-5939313.html?tag=cd.lede
http://news.com.com/Social+funds+warn+Web+firms+o
http://malfeasance.50megs.com/
I can't believe I even considered buying an imac,
when Apple has yet again proven itself to be
a company of patent-loving freedom-hating
control freaks.
He's stated in one line the exact problem Apple faces and will continue to face:
Osx works great my pc laptop is faster and I can run more programs on it Apple makes nice stuff but its overpriced for what it is and so is the software..
Intel Macs will fail, simply because computer buyers don't want a sleek piece of hardware. They want it cheap, fast and disposable. The days of seeing a computer as a major investment are over, it's now a disposable appliance.
The fear you have is an advantage- when people see Mac vs Windows, not just side-by-side but overlapping, they will be forced to make comparisons and choose a favorite. (My money's on the "X".)
I suggest you read Slashdot
Your post was really walking the line between Insightful and Funny...until a mod knocked over to one end :)
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
If Apple win this patent it means all other software will be fair game or risk infringement for fourteen years... or when the reforms finally make all this junk worthless, whichever comes first.
I still can't understand what Apple is thinking. Yes, I know, they want to sell their hardware bundled with OS X. That currently makes them money. However, they're missing the boat on a lot of people that would love to install OS X hassle-free on their own choice of hardware. If Apple were to allow this, the sale of their OS could easily eclipse the profit provided by their hardware sales. Mac people will still likely continue to buy their hardware, as their hardware is "fashionable," and also because AppleCare provides decent hardware warranty service.
Maybe there's some legal stuff preventing them from doing it? I don't know. The fact that Apple continues to avoid selling to a hot market boggles my mind.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
Indeed, Microsoft might be secretly happy about this scheme, since they might be less beholden to Dell.
remember when microsoft dropped office for the mac. they probably knew back then that apple would most likely make the change to x86. the interesting thing is how fast is the emulation of all the old mac software on the sse2/sse3 intel pentium4 engine? Is it going to rip! or what! seriously 111!!
Let's ignore the illegality issue for a moment. Let's say you could download a magic file and have OSX on your PC tomorrow. Would you do it? When I can, I run Linux (in the form of CentOS) on my desktop. However, there are a number of occasions when I need to use a piece of software that won't run under Linux (or wine). Those same programs also do not run on OSX. So am I going to punt my existing "necessary evil" Windows machines so I can get some eye candy for my desktop and STILL have to maintain a Windows machine for compatability? Personally, I don't think I would, but maybe there are some folks out there that would do it "because they can."
I don't believe a word of that post, and the author needs help with punctuation (like actually using some).
I will have a homebrew macosx tiger/win vista box =) cant wait, but actually, i would probably have no reason for windows, osx is a great system, it runs very clean, i think thats what i like it so much, the power of linux, but very easy for anyone to use, its great
I did something kinda (vaugely :) similar years ago using self modifying code back in my young teenage DOS/Doze assembler programming days. It didn't really do anything to stop the code being modified or screwed up, but it did a rather good job at obscuring and hiding things.
:)
Basically there was 3 layers of "encryption" on code..
The first stage was for protection of functions/code blocks, which started with a call to the end of the block, which then called the decrypter function, used the return addresses on the stack as start and length, decrypted the block in between, ran the code, and reencrypted on return of the block.
Second stage used x86 instruction trace interrupt (int 1) to decrypt the next instruction, and encrypt the previously executed one. I used a single byte instruction (int3 i recall) to turn on and off this tracing interrupt.
Then finally, the entire code and data was encrypted, along with a software generated decryptor.
It was a little bit of a beeyatch putting the binaries together.
My original plan was to protect those software registration engines that were so easy to trace through and break with the likes of Softice.
Looking back, it probably would of made something rather fun of the viral sort, but I am thankful I wasn't into excessive dissent as a teen hacker.
Like everything else, faith is EARNED by a society.
I submit that, given the attitudes most in evidence currently in the US, we at least have good cause to doubt society.
Intelligent design, banning gay marriage IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS, invading Iraq without being sure enough of our ground (of course, it's a bit late to say "oops, sorry about that, our mistake" even assuming we had the guts to be honest)
If this is an example of the direction society is headed, I not only don't have much faith in it I'm seriously doubting its ability to function in spite of some rather nasty human behavioral traits which seem to be recurring and inate.
Before:
Intel and MS pair up to introduce it - PC public emphatically rejects it.
They try again - same result.
Now:
Apple switch to Intel and pair up to use it - Mac public gushes emphatically.
Later:
MS point at Apple and force it in to the platform - Linux is now only available on Apple hardware.
"Next you'll declare that all employees care about, by definition, is their paycheck"
This is a bad comparison, the employee is a human, the corporation isn't. IIUC, corporations are required by law to maximise profit for their shareholders, and thus can be sued if they do something solely for the good of society, unless they can show that they made money out of it.
Apple knows that us Linux freqs enjoy a good challenge!
A 'patch' will be released before this even hits the shelves!
I mean, who else really should give a damn about this?
It could also be a ploy from Steve to convince the layman that M$ needs to run next to Linux and Tiger in order to be practical.
Then when everyone sees how wonderful Tiger and Linux is, Billy boy Jr. will be on the unemployment line.
Steve has been counted out many times before..
At least we'll have a qool and nerdy OverLord then :)
--
The InterNet is a terrible thing to waste. Arrest Bill Gates and shut down Mircrosoft immediately.
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
The patent is obviously to prevent Microsoft Windows from trying to overtake the computer, especially when it's being re-installed again.
hahaha!
I doubt that would happen. If anything, MS would make it MORE compatible with OS X. After all, MS is after global domination, and for the most part...has achieved it. Apple has always relied on the sect that just wouldn't do "windows". On the other hand, what does apple have to gain by doing this? Could it be that they KNOW people would jump to OS X and just use windows just for games? (which I suspect alot of linux folks do already - I know I did). It would also let them compete on an equal footing (somewhat), IF their business apps were superior to MS products. Pro's: They sell more hardware. More people start using OS X. Con's: Everyone switches to windows (unlikely). Obviously, there are alot of ways to look at this, but in my opinion, Apple has been making some very good calls in the last few years.
Sounds like you base your attitude towards all of the multi-hundred-million people that comprise the US on the typical half-dozen bullet-point news items that major networks are puking out day after day.
Your "informed" opinion is an illusion. Go outside and talk to your neighbors. Do you even know their names?
As for the Powerbook with strips "all over" the LCD ... call AppleCare and keep complaining until they take it back. /i?
Haha! And you don't see a problem with this? This is hilarious! Just keep calling back. Nice, man. Nice. Now, maybe I should bring up how apple refuses to replace the obviosly defective Nanos. Or maybe how Apple refused to admit the infamous power button problem when they first released the new Imacs? Or maybe some Cube stuff? Like how they refused to admit the cube had a poorly designed heat-prevention system? Or maybe how they refused to admit previous problems with the LCDs on both the Ibook and powerbook?
Maybe I should bring up how I've had a defective power adapter replaced on my dell, just by opening a support ticket on their website. Or how I got my power supply replaced on my IBM desktop the first time I called them? How about my Sun servers that require one dmesg submission to get a new hard drive?
Keep parroting man, you and your think different crowd are the only fools now.
I don't remember having to pay to look at patents. Must be gettin old..
The only reasonably secure solution I've been aware of was encrypted code that is sent to the CPU or an off die security engine for decryption into run-able code. The encryption is public/private key with the private key lying inside an "Apple" CPU
Anyone have more details?
$_.=["a".."z"," "]->[rand 27] while !/just another perl hacker$/;
microsoft's aim in supporting TCPA was to make their code "tamper resistant" by encrypting parts of the OS with pgp style encryption
This is not what TCPA is about. The point of TCPA is that a chip in the computer can create a digitally signed report on the software controlling the machine (i.e. BIOS code, boot loader, kernel, device drivers, OS security policy, and any other pertinent information) and send it out the network interface on demand.
The effect is that in the future when some genius coder cooks up a drop-in replacement for Windows (or something just as desirable), genuine Windows(R) operating systems will be able to shun it because its TPM won't produce a certificate saying that computer.
Microsoft's plan is not to control our computers by denying us easy access to the code they run. Microsoft's plan is to control our computers by ensuring that if we choose to run an OS that they didn't write, we will not be able to interoperate with other computers.
Ah... This is a little OT, but I doubt most people care (or care to know) where their money's actually coming from. Chances are, whoever you work for, that a portion of your paycheck is made possible by unsavory business practices. And, with the complex web of corporate ownership that we have today, ... Well, the amount of time and effort it would take for you to insure that your employer's employer's employer's ethics are in line with your own is more than most of us can spare.
Apple is merely attempting to protect their new hardware/OS platform. By building in some TPM scheme, they have a demonstratable attempt to protect their technology. This provides a method for legal actions for any offical vendor that attempts to reverse engineer the Tamper Resistant code.
BeDammit
"Dell cannot sell computers with OS X on them without consent from Apple."
True. But that's not the _important_ consent that's missing, is it.
When a man walks a dog they are both on a leash.
-me
Dr. Nick: Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
So patents are apparently written in a very strange way for reasons that no doubt make sense to someone. Aside from converting a tree structure into a series of numbered paragraphs (this patent describes an X being comprised of Y and Z. The Y comprises a Q, R, and S. etc.) it is also written in a bewilderingly specific and yet vague way so as to at all times make it clear that whenever they talk about something in particular, they in fact mean to include stuff that they haven't mentioned and may not even have thought of.
So, having tried to wade through all of this, here's my potted summary.
A "tamper-resistant" code block can be created *automatically* (i.e. not by hand) by translating an ordinary code block into a tamper-proof code block. The tamper proof code-block may be composed of checksummed code with extra inserted code that performs arbitrary operations (using, for example, information stored on a ROM, or taken from the computer's clock, or from the user's settings) and then is expected to produce a specific result.
E.g. multiply the current time by the user's name converted into a number and subtract the checksum of the code block and produce the number it did when the code was initially "tamper-proofed".
To verify the code has not been tampered with it can be executed in an environment (a virtual machine, say) which behaves like the real environment but where system calls have no effect so that only the ancillory results are produced. If these results aren't right, the code block is rejected.
I'm probably missing a lot, but the proposed system is AT LEAST this sophisticated, which is a heck of lot more convoluted than, say, checksumming code blocks. I think figuring this out is well beyond the script kiddies that produce the majority of malware.
If all of the patent attorneys were properly pithed and spayed, this ridiculous situation would correct itself very quickly.
What the (blank) department would like to see in future Intel based Macintosh computers.
1. A multi-button mouse. With the recent "Mighty Mouse" part of this need has been address. Although, this mouse could use more ergonomic feedback and improvements. A default option from the Apple Store for the "Mighty Mouse" is fine, but additional choices for a two button or three button mouse from a pull down menu choice will give customers more flexibility.
2. The HFS+ journaled filesystem must coexist with an NTFS, or any Linux filesystem like XFS or ext3 on a multi- partition harddrive.
3. Intel based Macs should have IEEE-1394 support and have Firewire target mode and netboot from EFI (the new Intel based BIOS)
4. Intel based Macs should be able to run Windows XP SP2 on it and future Windows Vista. i.e. minimize or eliminate custom ASICs on motherboard that would cause problems installing Windows. Dual booting Intel based Macs will be desirable, but what would be even better is virtualization using Intel's Vanderpool technology to run the few Windows applications that haven't been ported to Mac OS X i.e. AutoCad, Rhino 3D.
5. Intel based Macs have to support PCI Express x16 for graphics cards. Support high end professional graphics card from Nvidia Quadro and ATI FireGL with CoreImage support is absolutely critical for engineering, scientific and the visualization industry. If possible a 3rd player supporting Mac OS X, like 3DLabs Wildcat Realizm series. This would greatly benefit the Mac OS X platform as a more serious player in the CAD and high end computer graphics industries.
Last but not least for all Macs (x86 and PPC) an easy integration with Active Directory or AFS for user login. Currently both methods require work on Mac OS X.
Well - we *do* already seem to have virtually "unhackable" DRM out there right now. Anyone see a working hack for DirecTV receivers using the "P4" series cards?
Naah... too easy...
"MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com
I think that there will be an embedded Linux kernel running on a chip on the motherboard. This kernel will execute certain system calls. The result of the call execution will depend on a key (cryptographic?) which will be derived from something particular to your (or Apple) hardware. If you do not have the right key in hardware, the result will be wrong, and OS X will not run. Part of the key to this is that some code in OS X will have to translate to different, obfuscated code, and when obfuscated, still derive the correct solution using the input key correctly. Code obfuscation allows you to not only hide what a program is doing, but to make the line that executes dependent on the result of a method in a way that is difficult or impossible for a code analyzer to detect. (Since the result does not exist until run-time, a reverse compiler can not determine what the result is.) If the result depends on this input key (built into Apple motherboards), then having the wrong (or no key) means that the code will not translate correctly, and therefore OS X will fail to run.
I do not think that this has ANYTHING to do with running multiple OSs simultaneously. I think that Windows was listed in the set simply for obfuscation purposes - to hide the real purpose from slashdot readers, journalists, hackers, and competitors.
Well, if I was doing IT for a larger company (my small company has 15 people, adding 5 every 6 months or so, so we buy that many new Macs), and I could buy a Dell and pop in an Apple DVD, that would be my Mac stations... Basically, for anyone that wanted OS X, it would be easier and cheaper normally to buy the lowest end Dell and stick OS X in there... Sure the equivalent Dell to an Apple is about that same price as the Apple (+/- 10%), but Apple has limited selection... Sure the equivalent Dell to the Mini (including XP Pro) is about $550, but I can buy a $300 Dell... and possibly do dual-monitor for $300-$600, compared to $2000 with Apple...
Basically, Apple doesn't want people buying design workstations (dual monitor, decent RAM, etc.) buying a $1200 Dell instead of a $2000 "PowerMac," and spending $200 to get the Mac OS X, they want to sell the $2000 hardware and make their $400 in margins...
Sure, there WILL be a way to buy an off the shelf machine, or alternatively, assemble off-the-shelf parts to match what the Mac has, flash firmware or whatever to match Apple's trickiness, and run OS X... guess what, college kids will do it... but there is no way for my company I would do that...
Because if I roll out a patch (say, 10.5.3) and it breaks my machines, I'm SOL until a new "hack" comes out... or a security patch does it, etc., etc... Sure, for a hobbyist they'll do it... and I doubt Apple cares that a few Alpha geeks run hacked Macs... they get some mindshare and possibly sell some software (maybe not the OS, but maybe Pages or Quicktime Pro, or anything), and maybe when that kid makes purchase decisions he'll buy Macs...
What they DO NOT want is my small company buying 5 Dells + 5 Dell monitors + OS X DVDs, instead of 5 Mac Minis + 5 Apple monitors (the combo looks SO slick) and then buying OS X upgrades annually...
It's not about normal unsupported... it's about some OS upgrade breaking the system and leaving me fucked with an insecure machine until the upgrade happens. ALL they need to do is have the stock kernel check something in the hardware and it will accomplish 80% of their objectives. Anything ELSE they do it just gravy... my guess is something in the kernel, and something in the closed source layers... basically force you to apply a new hack every security patch/OS upgrade, and that will keep all but hobbyists from going that route... and that is ALL Apple needs.
Alex
Back in the day of Rhapsody, there was:
Yellow Box (OpenSTEP APIs) with multi-arch binaries for x86 and PPC...
Blue Box - now Classic, ran Mac OS in a window, basically a Virtual Mac environment
Java - ran natively in Yellow Box land
Red Box (or Blue Box x86, it's been a while) that ran Windows in a Window...
That was part of the Rhapsody/x86 part... The idea was Mac users upgrade to Rhapsody/PPC with their old software in emulation... Windows users upgrade to Rhapsody/x86 with their old apps in the Windows in emulation... (note, its more virtualization than emulation, because the hardware would be direct calls)... then when all apps are Rhapsody/Yellow Box, everyone upgrades to the chip of choice, then assumed to be PPC, but it didn't matter who won.
Well, that got abandoned, or so we thought. Apple apparently kept their x86 codebase REASONABLY up to date... and I would assume that they are using their old Windows stuff.
I'm excited... right now I keep a Windows machine on my desk to run Quickbooks and a few random small applications... I can't wait to have the ability to run those apps at full speed (say 95% of full speed) on my new Powerbook...
I'm not in a platform war, I just want a laptop that runs BSD, MS Office, and is reasonably reliable. This is a wonderful time...
Interestingly, hopefully for most apps I'll just run Darwine instead of needing to run Windows, but I can run it for apps that need it.
Good times, good times. And hell, I need to buy Windows licenses from time to time anyway to run in Virtual PC if I need a Windows app on the road, so its a wash...
Alex
sounds like you're leaking...
uh. anyone could just find your "decryption" algorithm and run it on the code blocks ahead of time. your system is no more secure than someone setting up a swap file. data not in mem? -> run algorithm to fetch data. mem full? -> run algorithm to store data. In your case, whenever accessing a block of memory for assembly instructions or data, instead of swapping into memory from disk, you'd run some function to unmangle in-memory asm/data, and whenever done accessing it, instead of swapping it out to disk you'd mangle it in-memory. Your mangle/unmangle functions could easily be observed.
Of all the patents Microsoft has applied for, I think it's pretty funny that they didn't even try to touch this one.
As far as Apple's new patent goes, I wonder if the Tamper Resistence will be as resilient as Fairplay? he he
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
> Why is Slashdot so obsessed with cracking OS X to run it on generic x86 machines..
:(
Ah, Apple fanboys.
I suspect a lot of people would want to do it to have Apple's supposedly superior OS on a) the totally adaquate hardware the person already owns and b) on the unquestionably superior variety of PC hardware. With Apple you get to pick from a couple of desktops, a couple of laptops and one or two servers. In PC land, Dell has more choices of hardware and they are only one of hundreds of PC vendors to pick from, including parting out your dream machine from your fav online vendors.
Personally I don't see the point, but I then I don't particularly like OS X or Apple. I want UNIX, Apple is close but no bananna. My opinion of em is based on OS X 10.0 though, if I could plunk down a C note and try the current version on my existing box I'd probably give em another look just to be current. But I ain't buying a whole PC with all the side costs that entails just to look. And unlike most potential Apple customers I even have a KVM switch at home.
Then again, I'm not a typical customer. Would never make an unfree OS my primary work environment. I will still play with unfree stuff but I'm RMS pure enough to never depend on the stuff for anything important.
Democrat delenda est
invading Iraq without being sure enough of our ground
Bush and his buddies have a big plan and it has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or toppling dictators.
...fourteen years...
Patents last for 20 years, not 14. Exception: drug patents last for 7.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
The patent contains no interesting, new methods. Instead, Apple is attempting to patent the general idea of transforming a program into a tamper resistant form.
The USPTO will probably grant this, or many of its claims, despite its lack of novelty. But this patent is a poster child for what is wrong with the patent system.
I prefer ignoring the fact that there's encryption. I hook the decryption function. When the place I need to patch gets decrypted, I found out and I write over that instruction.
This way, I don't need to bother with most of the protection.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
I for one welcome our new tamper-resistant overlords.
I predict they will be in power for quite a while, too.
a patent that MSFT won't fight for or have use for
Perhaps they're abandoning it altogether? Internet Explorer for Windows got abandoned years ago at version 6.
Cthulhu loves you.
Not to mention that employees are individual people, while corporations are fictional entities that have been given many of the rights of people. Humans have moral sense, but (as the USSR, Nazi Germany, and many other organizations showed) organizations of them do not.
And hey, we only needed one machine to implement this. Moreover, in our technique, the program rewrites itself, and it does so fully automatically, so no manual editing is required. Look for our paper on "Software Protection through Dynamic Code Mutation" at last week's Workshop on Information Security Applications (WISA2005), which you can download at www.elis.ugent.be/~brdsutte.
It's not that it's unhackable, it's just too much trouble to have been broken so far. The encryption engine and relevant microcode is hidden deep in an ASIC, and no one has been able to secure an e-beam slicer long enough to open it up. There are only a few of them at major universities and chip fab labs, and it's pretty hard to "borrow" time on them during your lunch hour for such a "project". Someday, it will probably be broken but it has served the purpose of any successful encryption system - to keep sensitive data from prying eyes until it's no longer sensitive.
Actually, no one ever really cracked the P3 DRM either, what was known was due to internal leaks, rumored to have been possibly deliberate, as NDC (Rupert Murdoch) owns their competitor, Dish Network! Anyway, the P3 hacks were all workarounds that still needed the real hardware DRM decryption engine to do the work. There was rumors of a soft decryptor, but I never saw one and personally I think that was vaporware.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Sweet, the quintessential Slashdot super-obvious comment with != in the subject! It never gets old!
Nick
If you actually read the patent is all about mp3 files, playback of encrypted mp3 files, and iTunes.
It all seems very confused. Sounds like some bright young engineer had too much time on their hands and came up with a DRM system that looks great on a whiteboard, and will be total crap if they ever try to turn the design into shrinkwrap. A lighweight OS on top of a primary OS...pleeeesee.
Apple patented the mighty mouse - maybe 2 years before they actually produced it. They also have a tablet mac patent too. My point is, this could all be a smokescreen, get everyone excited about their new 'tamper-resitant' code, and then on day one Intel suprise us with a totally new type of instructions set and chip for the MacIntels. I'll wait to judge this one, when I have a MacIntel sat in front of me.
You forget the technologies inside OSX which seem to make it a dream for developers to code for. You only have to look at Aperture and see that a program like that isn't coming out on windows for anytime soon.
Jonathanjk.com
And I hope that someone comes out with a 150-200GB disk for laptops pretty soon so I can fit all this lot on one system. My 100GB PowerBook hard drive is already 83% full.
Absolutely fucking brilliant move by Apple. Jobs must have allowed for this eventuality for quite sometime. This really is the final piece in the puzzle. It must have been obvious to Jobs that that as long as Office was the de facto business standard in the business world, Apple could never grow significantly. It would just be too much of a threat to Microsoft. Microsoft could simply drop Office for Mac and basically kill it off in the corporate world. But it now looks as though Apple intends to compete seriously with Microsoft for domination of the Personal Computing space, they needed to ensure that they would always have Office available. I believe that Microsoft always intended to kill Office for the Mac at some stage (their lawyers are brilliant and would have dragged out any potential lawsuits for decades - in the meantime Corporate Apple woudl be dead), if it became a threat. This is one of the reasons why Apple have been steadily increasing the number of OS X only apps they are building. They need to ensure that there are very strong reasons for using Apple in any event. I predict that along with Leopard 10.5, Apple will finally introduce their Office equivalent - Pages / Numbers / Filemaker Pro / Keynote.
OK. Like most slashotters, I used to live in blissful ignorance of female plumbing -- innocently assuming that a woman simply popped in a clean tampon at the beginning of her period, and took it out dirty at the end.
Just recently I found out that it doesn't work like that -- they get through a whole bleeding {pun intended} packet every month!
What I want to know is, why isn't wash-and-reusable sanitary protection more common? I know I'd use it if I was a woman! I mean, surely the thought of cleaning it out and replacing it isn't even remotely as disgusting as the thought of all those used tampons festering in landfill sites for hundreds of years?
Well making it more trouble than it is worth to crack *is* the objective of encryption (or has Phil Zimmerman been lying all these years?)...
Apple should not sell the OS seperately because I don't want to buy it. I want the integrated experience. Its a non-sequitur, if that's what you want, buy it. Why should it not sell to others who don't want it?
Apple is a hardware manufacturer and if it allows people to run the OS on other hardware, it will go out of business. People who argue this, then turn around and claim that Apple hardware is better cheaper and faster than anyone else's. So why will unbundling not lead to a boom in hardware sales?
Apple shouldn't lock its OS at all. Why not? Of course, its entitled to protect its investment by product activation or DRM or whatever. Everyone else does.
Finally, we have the argument, if its unbundled, people will try to run it on hardware which will not run it, and this will put off buyers and damage the reputation of the company. This is crazy. It will be shipped with a list of what is supported. And manufacturers of cards, mainboards etc will tell you what the OS requirements are. They do it now, after all. Why would they stop?
Finally we have the argument, people who buy X and run it on their Toshibas (as ZD-net seems to have done) will not be having the Apple Experience. Well, maybe not. Why do you care? If you want to have the Apple Experience, which seems to consist in looking at a particular case while using X, go ahead. But this is not a reason for selling other people the unbundled X experience, if this is what they want.
The more I hear people arguing about this, the less sense it makes. Surely the point is, sell the customer what he wants to buy. He probably really does know what he wants. Let the customer worry about value for money and the sort of experience he is having. Don't try to dictate what he is supposed to want or how he is supposed to feel.
The equally hacker-proof Dish smartcards (rom10x'es) have been dumped, same for the canadian equivalent (bell expressvu). At some point they had Dish working, until they started changing keys and doing ECMs. Their new system is already half broken, and these cards were supposed to be the Fort Knox of smartcards, I thought they'd NEVER EVER be dumped (can't even glitch them, so it's back to finding holes in code only).
At least that's what would be claimed over and over again here if it were Microsoft rather than Apple filing this patent.
I see you got your naivete karma bonus going there. (Although I can't see how, you used the f-word here.) Your comparison is inaccurate because you cannot compare a living, breathing person to an abstract entity such as a corporation. The two are very different things. I don't think Jobs et al deliberately try to screw over the world. At the same time, realize that no corporation is founded to better the world. They are founded to make money. After all, materialism is the American way. Individually evaluated, every company has a list of things its done right and wrong. It just happens that Apple is the flavor of the month around here.
Face it: if this story were about Microsoft, you'd all be crying about how evil it is. Watch me get moderated into oblivion for pointing this out.
Keep parroting man...
Ah, sweet irony.
In this specific case, what's wrong with Apple developing technology to make its products hard to emulate or reverse-engineer? Aside from its potential for harassing pirates, I don't see the harm in it.
In the short term not much harm. In the long term free markets are destroyed when other companies can't make devices interroperable, defacto and closed standards develop which new, small players cannot participate in and markets are created where the costs of entry get so high that cartels and monopolies develop.
No free markets, just ghetto's where different multi-nationals have a monopoly on their own product segment, have no incentive to create new things and have no incentive to reduce prices.
---
I'm not worried about the use of DRM. I'm worried about the abuse.
Except I'm not really repeating what I hear. I experienced the Sun,Ibm, and Dell issues first hand. I was an appletech from 1999-2001, and was well aware of many of the defects on the then new ibooks, powerbooks and imacs. In fact, I fixed a lot of the same defects on a huge number of machines. Apple still wouldn't claim there was a problem. I'd call them with 6 powerbooks in front of me doing the same thing.
Let's see... I submitted this story to Slashdot on Friday November 4. Just for the record.
The future is in beta
You don't know Steve Jobs. What qualifies you to define his character and personality so absolutely?
You aren't on Apple's board of directors. What qualifies you to discuss his company's methods and intentions as if you are?
True, I don't know you either, but your words suggest that you're on a steady diet of Apple kool-aide.
Why is it that software patents and IP law in general is evil except when it comes to Slashdot darlings like Apple and Google? The inconsistency and hypocrisy is a sure sign that religious fanaticism has replaced reasoned thought.
And no, I'm not new here!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
They had a good thing going when they were vending relatively unique hardware. Now they have decided to switch, ever increasingly, to less propietary hardware in order to save costs. They did it when they adopted PCI, PC style memory and IDE mass storage devices. Before long, people were upgrading their own systems with non-Apple stuff. Now the very core of the computer itself is being moved over to something more readily available on the market... they don't expect people to want to play?
There were more viruses for the Mac OS back in the early 90's, when Apple was on almost completely proprietry hardware (680xx, ADB, Nubus etc) than there are now where the only thing distinguishing a Mac from a PC on the hardware side is the CPU.
No I haven't read the patent... don't need to. If someone can dream it up, someone else can dream up a way to crack it.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Apple is well in a position to combine the techniques in this patent with locking Mac OS X to run on a 64-bit Intel CPU only. Already the Pro desktop and Xserve product lines are 64-bit and ship in configs up to 16 Gig memory. They will of course not revert to a 32-bit processor. There is nothing stopping them from waiting a launch of Intel bases systems until they can use Intel's new 64-bit chips in the Mini and portable product lines too.
Actually it would make more sense to go with the low voltage IBM 970MP for the Mini and even for a portable design for still some months because the application developers in the consumer market needs more time to prepare their apps. Running PowerPC apps in emulation with Rosetta on the Monad chip could prove to give a pretty mediocre user-experience, and I don't think that is the impression Apple would want give their new customers when they make the switch.
The future is in beta
You know, it occurs to me that the patent office might be able to significantly reduce the time required to research any given technology patent, by simply submitting an article to Slashdot. I think I just read about four or five different posts indicating what might well be genuine prior art, and at least one of those had a link to a business which probably filed their own related patents. But more importantly, I think that digging through all of the other amusing-but-mostly-irrelevant posts under this article would be much less boring then digging through the reams and reams of existing patents... ;-)
OSX86 is going to need lots of CPU cycles just to decrypt (whetever) the code. It needs to either 1) sacrifice or optimize other code 2) increase power of hw. I would never even use a cracked version of OSX now, because the code is intentionally (well, knowingly anyway) slowed down by the "DRM" stuff.
Maybe the real purpose isn't so much to protect it from a technical perspective, as it is to be able to obtain protection under the DMCA.
The world according to Steve Jobs is a scary scary place.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I used to work for Intel at the Intel Architecture Labs.
n 110999.htm
Intel developed Tamper resistant software technologies in the 90's
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/i
Dave Aucsmith (a security architect at Microsoft) used to work at Intel in the
Intel Architecture Labs.
This is one of Dave's papers:
D. Aucsmith. Tamper-resistant software: An implementation.
In Information Hiding: First International
Workshop: Proceedings, volume 1174 of Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, pages 317-333. Springer-Verlag,
1996.
many of the defects on the then new ibooks, powerbooks and imacs
Hey now, be fair. Don't forget about the Powermac G5 with its random crashing that produces gale-force winds.
Wrong. (You're probably to big Mac fan to see the reality)
If they are not the most used system on some hardware, then they are supposed to fear that suddenly user will find equivalent replacements in his other OS.
A possible scenario:
1. Developer makes custom app.
2. Companies he provides with run Windows.
3. He is forced to develop for Windows. (but he really preffers OSX)
4. Well, companies start to buy Macs and have dualboot.
5. And since maybe developer preffers Macs and knows that companies have OSX he makes next version for OSX.
6. Now multiply with the factor that average company user uses 2 custom apps and 8 generic.
7. As soon as those 2 custom apps are developed on OSX, need to buy windows suddenly vanishes.
Why would MS be happy about this scenario? And second thing. Dell is beholded to MS, not around. I wouldn't be happy if that comes to reality (Apple is even worster player in lockup game than MS). And I'm no MS fan.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Last but not least for all Macs (x86 and PPC) an easy integration with Active Directory or AFS for user login. Currently both methods require work on Mac OS X.
On Panther and Tiger, I was able to authenticate against Active Directory for user login after a brief Google on the Apple site and a few clicks in some preference screens. What work is required?
What experience do I have if I buy an Apple tower system, tuck it into a cabinet and connect it to my third-party USB keybaord, mouse, DVD burner, and display?
Am I getting less of an Apple experience than someone who uses the stock mouse/display/keyboard and puts their system in plain site?
If not, why wouldn't I still be getting the Apple experience on a whitebox x86 OS X system?
Couldn't your OSX instalation now be infected by a virus you get on your Windows install?
No smoking sigs indoors.
Anyone know of one?
l e),2))))
I was thinking of something along the lines of
eval(deflate(b64_decode('Ay7x8b'+left(md5($thisfi
where you'd have to somehow keep randomly but non-destructively tweaking the code (automated process, of course) by removing some portion of it that could be part of an md5 checksum, until part of the checksum actually matched the part of the obfuscated data that you removed... or something.
then again all you'd have to do to defeat this is substitute the first two characters from the md5 of the source... arggghhh
But really, is there in fact some clever way to tie the code to its form that is known?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at Apple/Jobs lastest attempt to monopolize. Maube this time even the Apple devotess/apologists will sit up and notice. What has Apple actually contributed to the invention of the desktop computer? Almost everything that makes an Apple/Jobs computer - has been taken from others - at no cost to Apple/Jobs - and is based on the inventiveness and the sweat/work of others. OS X's Darwin is based on FreeBSD. Check out the Free BSD site http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/article s/contributors/index.html and you'll see that Apple/Jobs neither contributed money or staff to the development of FreeBSD. In a similar fashion the GUI, the mouse, ICONS all came from Douglas Englebart in the early 60s and in the following years at Xerox. Check out http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars
"The combination of Smalltalk and the Alto was essentially a modern personal computer with a very similar graphical user interface to the ones we use today. Altos had networking and could send e-mail to and receive it from one another, and seemed ideal for an office environment. Many of the PARC team wanted Xerox to market the new, cost-reduced Alto III as a commercial product (the original Alto was never available for sale) but Xerox management declined."
Your reply not only answers the question, it's also informative. How the hell do the moderators see it as "offtopic"? God damn they suck. I, for one, thank you for your post. :)
Join Tor today!
I think this means they are going to re-release an updated set of the OpenStep frameworks. This would allow the same .app -bundle to work on top of any OS the frameworks are ported to.
Actually, I read this differently. It seems to me that they are (in cooperation with hardware) running a small block of code which intercepts running code from other OSes and prevents system calls it does not like. This would prevent someone tampering with Mac OS X code after installing Linux on the same box. System calls making accesses to 'tamper-resistant' parts of Mac OS can be cancelled. If so, I see this interacting very badly with other OSes, even if no tampering is intended.
Whatever happened to the idea that a patent application was supposed to be a full disclosure such that someone could actually implement the invention themselves after the patent expires? All they talk about is 'apply tamper resistant techniques' and nothing more specific. Without more specification, this is not novel. With more specification, it gives a roadmap for cracking it (all DRM depends utterly on obscurity). I wonder if a patent can be called into question on the basis of incomplete disclosure.
I don't see any shortage of people working for Microsoft, BAT, BAe Systems, and so on.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Mac mini: $500
Entry-level clone, roughly comparable: $300
Mac OS X retail: $130
XP Home retail: $200
XP Home upgrade: $100
XP Professional retail: $300
XP Professional upgrade: $200
What this means is that the retail Mac OS X price is a little more than Microsoft's upgrade price for XP Home, but the cost of buying it bundled is like buying XP Home or upgrading XP Pro... so if they sold an unbundled vetrsion that was priced like XP Pro, would they break even?
Not if you don't use a leash. My dogs just run around in a largish area around me, as I walk the property.
I drank what? -- Socrates
By building in some TPM scheme, they have a demonstratable attempt to protect their technology. This provides a method for legal actions for any offical vendor that attempts to reverse engineer the Tamper Resistant code.
Good news:
I don't really care about whether it's a stupid patent or not, since it's a stupid patent on something that has negative value... if they do patent this and discourage other people from doing the same stupid thing, that's actually a win
Bad news:
If they sell an OS that's got a boobytrap in it such that I can't fix a problem because I can't tamper with the OS, then that destroys a huge part of the value of Mac OS X for me. It means I can't use it for any work that actually matters to me, and Mac OS will join Windows in the category of "X-Terminal that runs a few local apps", and Windows does THAT cheaper and on much cheaper hardware.
Don't-care news:
If this is just a legal tactic and the actual scheme can be reliably bypassed for legitimate purposes, or at worst if they sell an OS that won't enable iTunes to play iTMS music or movies if I tamper with it, then that's a minor annoyance... biggest impact would be I don't buy anything more from the iTMS.
That's one side of the value proposition, but the other side is that the Mac UI is a _lot_ nicer than the Windows UI (at least for a lot of end-users), so Windows-native apps running under MacOS are going to feel really clunky, and it will be a competitive advantage for vendors who decide to actually support the Mac. And for vendors the decide never to support the Mac, we can still use their software if we must, which is a big improvement over the current state of the art.
Wouldn't it be cool to have an active tamper resistance system. Something that acts upon "threat conditions" to borrow a Dept. of Homeland Security term.
As suspicious activity increases, additional security measures are employed until the system shuts down all but the most basic services to reduce the ability to exploit it.
I'm not saying that three missed root password attempts and TCP/IP is shut down for a webserver, but the system could flag suspicious activity and stop services.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
With the recent "Mighty Mouse" part of this need has been address.
You mean there's more than one person who uses this mouse and considers it in any sense useful?
Dig up your copies of corporate charters and try and find the line that says, "Make profit by any means, no matter who gets hurt, no matter what.".
Why isn't that line there? Bad P.R. again? Or is it somehow "implied", that profits universally trump things like, say, avoiding murder, treason, oppression, or environmental damage?
As for the karma-dreaded Apple/Microsoft comparison, it actually provides an illustration of my point. Lest we forget our history, Microsoft is on the local shitlist because of its stress-inducing products and its misconduct in the marketplace. Up until about four years ago when OS X 10.1 came out, Apple was on that same list for its stagnation and irrelevance. (Linux was the sole savior of mankind. Remember those days?)
Now people are going "rah rah sis-boom-bah" because Apple is producing products that don't suck; that are in fact, pretty good, even uniquely good. Microsoft, by contrast, is still soul-searching. Their current plan is to transform into some kind of information mogul and cannibalize Google. Both Microsoft and Apple have profit as a motive - a primary motive, even - but Apple is in favor because their current means to meeting their primary goal is their secondary goal: to make products that don't suck.
Secondary and tertiary goals are what distinguish corporations from each other. Far from not existing or being irrelevant, they're often the only things that make corporations unique, that make some corporations find their niche while others flounder, that plague some with lawsuits while others chug quietly along. Any corporation that "doesn't care about what's right for their customers or otherwise" is a corporation in decline.
I learned from a trusted source that Steve Jobs likes avocado.
I think that evidence speaks for itself.
Seems to me to be a more extensive implementation of what the MPAA has been requesting congress legislate. Doesn't change the fact that the content will still be accessible and eventually, as easily as it is now.
I suspect the tamper-resistance is actually incredibly close to being tamper-proof.
We see the spectre of our New Millennium.
Big Brother is late but he's on his way.