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."

Comments

in other news ...

[boxlight]

In other news ... Microsoft files patent for sucking-resistent code.

Re:in other news ...

[JediLow]

Wow, I never knew Microsoft was going for a complete change in their business model.

Re:in other news ...

[richdun]

Also, Slashdot seeks new software to spell-check all posts, especially those that misspell words in the topic title, which appears in the title bar while viewing the page.

Re:Oh, I get it

[Gentlewhisper]

Nothing beats the smell of a homebrewed mac in the morning :)

Aptly named.

[AFCArchvile]

It's called "tamper-resistant" because the Titanic was unsinkable.

First Prime Factorization Post

[2*2*3*75011]

20050246554 = 2*3*13*9437*27239

Prior Art!

[EdwinBoyd]

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"

Tamper resistent?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are patenting Perl?

Can some ...

[Savage-Rabbit]

... 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.

Re:Can some ...

[kebes]

I'll gladly translate into multiple dialects for you.

Marketing language:
"20. A method comprosing: receiving a system call, wherein the system call is in synergy with other components of a system, wherein the sum of the system is leveraged to meet market demands in a new and fundamentally influential way, wherein a paradigm-shift results from the impact of the novel processes and inherently forward-looking business model that thereby ensues."

Money language:
"20. A method comprising: we program our computer to do something, someone else somewhere on earth programs their computer to do something that turns out to be similar; we determine that they have a computer doing something that only we are allowed to do; we sue; we make money."

Tinfoil-hat language:
"20. A method comprising: receiving a system call, wherein the system call is formatted to include all personal information on the computer, wherein this information is then encrypted and sent off to corporate HQ servers in order to be analyzed and thereafter used against the user of the originating personal computer sytem."

(very) Plain english:
"20. A method comprising: stuff happens."

Plain english:
"20. A method comprising: A translation layer between different operating system abstraction levels. When a running program (which may have been translated from a stored version of the program) makes a system call to the operating system, this methodology will handle that system call in such a way as to be "tamper resistant." For instance, it will only allow operations determined to be acceptable."

Hey... back off

[ImaLamer]

I for one welcome our new tamper-resistant overlords.

typo in the patent?

[conJunk]

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 code block, wherein the translating includes applying taper-resistance techniques to the first object code block or the second object code block. The method also comprises executing the second object code block.

it's candle proof? it can't be narrowed?

Re:typo in the patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, I am just a gluer.

Glue all the way!! Death to duct-tape!!

Re:typo in the patent?

[ChrisMaple]

It should read "tapir-resistant".

Re:There's another, more interesting aspect of thi

[maelstrom]

No worries mate, it worked out pretty good for OS/2 Warp.

Re:Link to patent publication

[Xyrus]

I'll just set that on the wall next to the unpickable lock, the unstealable car, and the unhackable DRM.

~X~

Re:Link to patent publication

[SFalcon]

That's not a good analogy. If flame-resistant blankets were like tamper-resistant code, once fire managed to burn the blanket it would then post all over the internet describing how it succeeded, resulting in increasingly efficient burning of said blankets.

I've SEEN this!

[TheSpoom]

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:

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? :^D)

Re:The most interesting thing about this

[tool462]

That's something that Micheal Dell would give his right arm to be able to do.

Since Apple is getting a patent on this process, he'll likely have to, if he wants to use it.

Re:Link to patent publication

[Pig Hogger]

I'll just set that on the wall next to the unpickable lock, the unstealable car, and the unhackable DRM.

Don't forget the unsinkable Titanic , too!

Re:Translating code blocks

[Pig Hogger]

Why is Slashdot so obsessed with cracking OS X to run it on generic x86 machines? So they don't have to pay for OS X? You know it's strictly for warezing up on Bittorrent to screw Apple.

Er, no. It's to avoid paying Apple usurious rates for hardware.

Re:Link to patent publication

[Chosen Reject]

Or the Unsinkable Molly Brown.

obl. Simpsons quote required here.

[pboulang]

Dr. Nick: Inflammable means flammable? What a country!

Re:Does it have to work to be patentable?

[Myria]

The USPTO has stated that their policy on perpetual motion patents can be changed by providing them with a working model.

Melissa

Re:Does it have to work to be patentable?

[Lars T.]

Power your time machine with it, and go back in time to patent both.

Re:And even if I could...would I?

[freeweed]

What on earth can I be doing wrong?

You're forgetting that the plural of anecdote is still not data.