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