Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Files Patent for "Tamper-Resistant Code"

Posted by samzenpus on from the can't-touch-this dept.

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."

23 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, I get it by ndansmith · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you set the source code file to "Read Only," no one can change it.

    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.

    1. Re:Oh, I get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I don't think Apple is too worried about homebrew Macs, they're more worried about clean-roomed Dell-Macs. Patents provide a decent kludge for use against the likes of Dell and other for-profit cloners.

    2. Re:Oh, I get it by snuf23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because a company could install the OS on it's hardware does not make it legal. Dell cannot sell computers with OS X on them without consent from Apple. I seriously DOUBT they would secretly make it so that OS X would run on Dells. To do so would violate the DMCA and would not be able to be passed of as an accident.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    3. Re:Oh, I get it by MacGod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ultimately, I don't think Apple cares much about the geeks hacking away at this. Most of their customers won't bother with any such hacking (especially given Apple's traditional target markets of non-techie creative users in film, image editing etc and the comparatively-neophyte home users). And even if they did get OS X to work on their Dell PC, there would be no drivers for their modem, sound card, video card etc. It just wouldn't be worth the hassle for most people.

      What this will do (and this is why it's "tamper-resistant", not "tamper-proof") is make it enough of a pain in the ass that I can't just take my OS X CD and merrily install it on my friend's Dell box. Which will ensure that most users simply won't bother. The geeks can hack away, and Apple will complicitly aloow it by simply not caring that much; we geeks represent too small of a market, and many of us wouldn't be paying for the software anyway. Apple just wants to make sure there aren't hundreds of Mac newbies out there calling their support line with questions like "I bought OS X and installed it on my Dell. Why won't it work?".

      --
      "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
  2. That's fair. by JohnnyLocust · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:That's fair. by Omestes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple is not MS, I think they have other standards besides JUST market share.

      I think they want to be BETTER in all ways, and let that sell their computers.

      Jobs is a perfectionist, I think, before he is a capitalist.

      You make better customers when you do this, have a superior product in all ways. How many Windows fanatics are there compaired to the Mac people. Much more? Pretty good being that MS has a 80% market share, yeah?

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    2. Re:That's fair. by catwh0re · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Another good example is that Apple's new iMac comes with a remote control and software that is driven by this. This software has now been hack to run on all Apple hardware with very little effort, even though it's not meant to be used on non-iMac computers.
      Sure it runs, but it runs best when there is a remote control driving it.
      My point is that Apple have logical ways that entice people to spend their money rather than hack around it, if the mac is for convienience and luxury, then hacking, possible slowdowns via emulated hardware and losing stability are simply not on the agenda.

      Additionally a similar argument is that alot of Mac software doesn't come with activation(when their intel counterparts do.) This is because there is strong correlation between people that purchase macs and people who are willing to cough up the dollars for software to run on it. A person who is unwilling to pay for software, is also someone who is unwilling to pay the premium prices that apple ask for.

      And Another: You can burn all your DRM iTunes Music Store songs to CDs, re-rip them and put them on any device you like... but the majority are happy with just using it on an iPod.

      My point is that, by taking away trivial hacks to make OSX work on generic hardware, the people who are likely to buy a mac, still will. The people who are never going to buy a mac, will hack it and run it on any hardware they like and probably aren't interested in purchasing an apple anyway; but this will just eat away a bit of that MS Windows marketshare. (Which makes Jobs happy.)

    3. Re:That's fair. by zootm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't really mean to sound whiney, but it's never cool to like the market leader. It's cool to like the smaller company. Macs are good for art, so the artist clique are the ones that identify the systems as cool — just as "proper" geeks are usually Linux enthusiasts. It's all image.

      I don't think there's as much of a void between Apple and MS as people think. Apple's market share just comes from their "cool factor", so it's something they focus on.

  3. Are they trying to patent checksums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Don't they mean... by Unordained · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't you mean it makes it illegal for anyone else to build a tamper-resistant software product (using this method) and/or tool for making other software tamper-resistant? At no point does this patent prevent the tampering, nor circumvention of the not-quite-uncircumventable method. The legality of tampering is irrelevant.

  5. Re:So.... by garote · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why not? All corporations are, by definition, for profit organisations. They don't care about what's right for their customers or otherwise, they only call about one single thing... their bottom line.

    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.

  6. Apple's Gift to the BSD Community by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:What if MS makes Windows Incompatible w/ Apple by Scowler · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Why would MS be opposed to someone installing Windows or other MS software on Apple hardware? That makes no sense. MS is primarily a software company, and they could care less which x86 hardware their software is being run on. From their point of view, the guy who purchased Apple hardware primarily intended to run OSX in the first place, and any Windows usage on the machine is bonus to them.

    Indeed, Microsoft might be secretly happy about this scheme, since they might be less beholden to Dell.

  8. And even if I could...would I? by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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."

  9. Re:Link to patent publication by catwh0re · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess that's why they used the words tamper resistant, instead of tamper proof.

  10. Re:I ask again: what DRM? by rsborg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Jobs has publically stated that Apple is not in the business of treating its customers like criminals.

    That's all well and good... I trust Jobs despite his egotistical nature (unfortunately, he's often right). But...

    What happens when he no longer runs Apple (succumbing to that great GC in the sky, or losing interest, etc.)? Do you trust #2 at Apple to keep this claim? And for how long?

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  11. My letter to Apple for what I want on a x86 Macs by saha · · Score: 3, Insightful
    See request #4. Note this was dated Oct 5th 2005, before the announcement PCI Express gfx cards.


    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.

  12. Re:Has anyone actually read TFPA? by softweyr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Your analysis seems close. The basics of this technique are not really all that new, a company named Clyde Digital produced several system monitoring tools for VAX/VMS back in the late 80s that loaded VMS system patches. The code for the patches was encrypted uniquely for each customer; the customer's license key was used to decrypt the code as it was loaded into the VMS kernel. This would certainly qualify as an obfuscation, if not the on-the-fly obfuscation mentioned in the patent.

    Creating a chip to sit on a memory bus and decrypt instructions as they are fetched from memory, which is what this really sounds like, is sick and wrong. One question that leaps immediately to mind is what kinds of hoops you have to jump through to get your operating system 'keyed' so it will boot on the iMax86.

    Jeers to Apple for attempting to create a system we won't be able to run open source operating systems on, if that's what they're shooting for.

  13. evil, bad patent by idlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:OS X on commodity hardware by bani · · Score: 1, Insightful

    you're an apple fanboy because you assumed by default the only reason anyone wants to run OSX on generic hardware is to avoid paying for it.

  15. Spoken like a true zealot by goldspider · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  16. An avenue for a virus? by Danimoth · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Couldn't your OSX instalation now be infected by a virus you get on your Windows install?

    --
    No smoking sigs indoors.
  17. Re:uh oh.... by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    " My point is that sometimes, if you don't put up fences, you will attract fewer unwelcome visitors than if you do. We are hard-wired to "push the envelope", to attempt the unthinkable, however it may manifest itself. This is an instinctive behaviour, as much a natural function as having sex or going to the toilet, and any attempt to pretend the contrary will surely be doomed to abject failure."

    I'm sorry, but this just comes of as a sorry effort at excusing the behavior of crackers. "We're just at the mercy of our primate urges! We deserve pity and sympathy! We know not what we do!"

    Yet it's also an effort at self-mythologizing: "attempting the unthinkable". Wow, that's heavy. As if shoplifting is made 'unthinkable' by the existence of security cameras.

    The same argument could be tried by rapists "Women shouldn't try to deny men sex, because that just drives us to take it by any means necessary".

    It's bollocks for rapists, it's bollocks for shoplifters, and it's bollocks for crackers.

    --
    September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA